• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Access to Independence

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Appletree House, Leyburn Road, Ellington, Masham, Ripon, North Yorkshire, HG4 4PF (01677) 460051

Provided and run by:
Mrs Caroline Jane Cocking

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

7 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out on 7 December 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available.

At our last inspection on 5 November 2013 the provider was meeting the regulations that were assessed.

Access to Independence is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. The service is provided to people who live in Masham, the surrounding villages and in other areas of Yorkshire. The agency office is situated between Masham and Leyburn. There is parking available outside the office. The registered provider is Mrs Caroline Jane Cocking.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run

People told us they felt safe and were well supported by the agency. All staff received training in safeguarding adults and there were clear policies and procedures in place to support staff if concerns were identified.

The feedback we received from people who used the service and their relatives was very positive. We received no negative comments. People told us they had confidence in the staff and they felt safe in the way staff supported them and had confidence in the staff.

People received care and support in their own homes according to their individual needs. People told us the service was flexible and wherever possible would accommodate any changes to people’s requirements. Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and information about how to support them to manage risks were recorded in people's care plan.

The agency had systems for recording incidents and accidents and there were systems in place to support staff should an emergency occur.

Appropriate checks were made as part of the service’s recruitment process. These checks were undertaken to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who may be vulnerable.

The service provided a training programme for staff to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people. This included a comprehensive induction and training at the beginning of their employment, and all mandatory health and safety training. We saw systems were in place to provide staff support. Staff participated in staff meetings, and meetings with their supervisor and completed an annual appraisal. The agency had a whistleblowing policy, which was available to staff. Staff told us they would feel confident using it and that the appropriate action would be taken.

Where people needed assistance taking their medicine this was administered in a timely way by staff who had been trained to carry out this role and staff liaised with healthcare professionals at the appropriate time to help monitor and maintain people’s health and wellbeing.

People told us that their views and wishes were considered and that they were involved in discussions regarding their care needs. People’s care plans were reviewed to meet their changing needs. Staff told us they felt well informed about people’s needs and how to meet them.

Policies and procedures were in place covering the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which aims to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The MCA sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. Staff had received training in this subject.

People described staff from the agency as kind and considerate and people told us that they were treated with dignity and respect. People told us they were always introduced to staff before they provided care on their own. Staff we spoke with told us how much they enjoyed working for the service and were committed to providing an excellent service for people.

People said they were confident in raising concerns. Each person was given a copy of the agency’s complaints procedures.

The provider had systems in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and to check staff were performing their role satisfactorily.

5 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with nine people and their relatives on the telephone. We were told by everyone what a fabulous service they received. Comments included: 'They are 200%; I cannot give a higher accolade.' And 'They've been grand.'

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the service acted in accordance with their wishes. We asked people if their plan of care had been discussed with them and they confirmed they or their representatives had been involved in planning their care. We saw evidence of this in the records we reviewed.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We were told by people who used the service they always had the same team of carers. Holidays and absences were normally covered by people they had already met and liked. This meant that the service had sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service effectively.

We had the opportunity to speak to a number of support workers who delivered care in people's homes and they were able to tell us they felt supported and listened to by the management team.

We saw there was an effective complaints system. The service did not have any outstanding complaints on the day of our inspection.

13 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who receive support from the agency. We also spoke with six relatives of people who receive a service from the agency, but were unable to speak with us directly because of the complex needs they had. People told us that they were happy and satisfied with the care and support being provided. Comments made to us during this review included,

"First class- the ladies that look after me are unbelievably good" and "I can't praise them enough. They are doing a marvellous job." People also said "The staff are first class - quite excellent" and "The agency is absolutely fantastic - the girls are brilliant."

People told us that they hold copies of their care plans and confirmed that they were always involved in any care planning with the agency.

Staff told us that they were well supported and were provided with the information and training they needed to do their jobs. Staff we spoke with told us the training at the agency was 'really good' Staff made comments about the agency such as "The agency is really good as they allow plenty of time for you to spend with people - there is no rushing about." Another told us "The agency cares for the carers as well - it is the best agency I have worked for."

We spoke with the Local Authority Contracts Officer who informed us that they did not have any concerns about this service.