Reynards Care and Support Agency

Updated 12 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection was announced and took place on 19 and 20 November 2018. We gave the provider short notice of the inspection as we needed to make sure they were available so that we could access records, talk to staff and gain permission from people who used the agency to visit or talk to them.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at the information in the PIR and looked at other information we held about the service before the inspection visit. We also looked at notifications sent in by the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

One adult social care inspector, one medicines inspector and one expert by experience carried out the inspection. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

During our inspection, we spoke with the nominated individual, the registered manager, the deputy manager and three support workers. We spoke with four people on the phone who received personal care, and we spoke with four members of their family who were closely involved in their care and support. We also visited six people in their own homes. After the inspection, we contacted five health and social care professionals to seek their views on the service. None of them responded.

We looked at records relevant to the management of the service. These included ten care plans. We reviewed risk management plans, health and safety records, complaint and incident reports, three staff recruitment files, training records, medicine management records, and performance monitoring reports.

Updated 12 December 2018

The inspection for The Reynard Care and Support Agency took place on the 19 and 20 November 2018. The inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available for the inspection. It also allowed us to arrange to speak with people receiving the service.

Reynard's Care and Support Agency is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. Currently they provide support exclusively to learners at what was, the independent college Foxes Academy based on the seafront in Minehead. In September 2017 Foxes Academy and Reynard's Care and Support Agency was bought by Aurora and now, although they are both independent of each other they do form part of the Aurora Group. Foxes Academy is a specialist catering college and training hotel for young adults with learning disabilities. (Rated as Outstanding when inspected by Ofsted in September 2018.) Foxes emphasises the importance of learners developing independence whilst at the college and progressing into work or further training.

This inspection focused only on the care and support delivered by Reynard's Care and Support Agency, and not any of the work delivered by Foxes Academy, which is not regulated by CQC.

Staff at Reynard's Care and Support Agency work in partnership with the teaching and residential staff to enable learners to maximise their potential and obtain maximum benefit from the time they spend at Foxes. Reynard’s care and support staff help with people's daily personal care routines, support them if they became unwell and promote healthy living by assisting people to manage their own health.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good

People and their relatives told us they trusted staff and felt safe when staff came to their house to support them. One person told us, “Yes, I am with people who are looking out for me”. Policies in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing reflected local procedures and relevant contact information.

Staff demonstrated a good awareness of safeguarding procedures and knew who to inform if they witnessed or had an allegation of abuse reported to them. Systems were in place to identify and reduce the risks to people living in the home. People's care plans included risk assessments. These documents provided staff with a clear description of any risks and guidance on the support people needed to manage these risks.

There were enough staff available to meet people's needs and to keep them safe. A robust recruitment and selection process was in place and staff had been subject to criminal record checks before starting work at the service.

Systems were in place that showed people's medicines were managed consistently and safely by staff. Policies and procedures were available for staff. Staff had competency checks and training provided on induction. People were protected by staff who followed good infection control practices and staff knew the reporting process for any accidents or incidents.

The provider had appropriate systems in place to assess people’s needs and choices. There were copies of pre-admission assessments on people’s files. People said the staff were well trained and that they did a good job. The new provider, Aurora had an extensive training programme. Training was delivered using methods such as face to face and on-line learning.

Staff had regular one to one supervision and we saw annual appraisals in staff files.

Staff worked successfully with healthcare services to ensure people’s health care needs were met. Staff supported people to access services from a variety of healthcare professionals including GPs, chiropodists, dentists, diabetic nurses, and epilepsy nurses to provide additional support when required.

People had their needs assessed before they were accepted into the service. The provider sought consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance. People told us they were involved and discussed their care and support needs with staff. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as they could be without disempowering people. People kept their support plans in their rooms and staff had made sure they were clearly set out and easy to read.

There was a registered manager in post. The leadership was visible, accessible and gave clear lines of responsibility and accountability. There were effective quality assurance arrangements in place to raise standards and drive improvements. Complaints procedures were available to people and their relatives and regular surveys were sent out to allow people to feedback their views on the service overall.

Further information is in the detailed findings below