You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

This inspection took place on 3 and 5 February 2015 and was announced. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the agency office that could assist us with the inspection. We previously visited the service on 23 January 2014 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.

East Riding Quality Homecare Limited is registered to provide personal care and other types of support to people living in their own homes, such as assisting with the administration of medication and the preparation of meals. The agency office is located in Anlaby, in the East Riding of Yorkshire and staff provide a service to people living in the surrounding areas.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager in post who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 that they felt safe whilst they were receiving a service from care workers. People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse because the registered provider had effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff also told us that they would not hesitate to use the agency’s whistle blowing procedure if needed.

New staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post, and staff told us that they were happy with the training provided for them. The training records evidenced that all staff had completed induction training and that refresher training was completed by staff on a regular basis.

New staff had been employed following the agency’s recruitment policies and procedures, and this ensured that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed.

We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s individual needs. The registered manager made sure that, whenever possible, staff worked within a small area so that their travelling time was reduced. This meant they were able to spend most of their time with the people they were supporting rather than travelling from person to person.

People told us that care workers and managers were caring and that their privacy and dignity was respected by all staff who worked for the agency. People told us that they received the support they required from care workers and that their care packages were reviewed and updated as required. They expressed satisfaction with the assistance they received with the administration of medication and meal preparation.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and there were systems in place to deal with any complaints received. However, no complaints had been received by the agency since the last inspection. In addition to this, no complaints about the agency had been received by CQC or the local authority.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who received a service, and feedback had been analysed to identify any improvements that needed to be made. The analysis had been shared with everyone who received a service and with staff, and we saw that it was also displayed on the agency’s website. People told us that any concerns they had were listened to and acted on.

The quality audits undertaken by the registered provider were designed to identify any areas that needed to improve in respect of people’s care and welfare.

People were highly satisfied with the consistency of the service. They told us that they received support from the same care worker or small group of care workers, and that they were informed if a different care worker would be attending. People said that care workers arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time.

The registered provider had a website and we saw that this included information for people that was ‘over and above’ what would be required of the agency. It included general advice for people on where and how to obtain support with areas such as benefits, transport and social activities as well as the service provided by East Riding Quality Homecare Limited.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was safe.

Staff displayed a good understanding of the different types of abuse and were able to explain the action they would take if they had any concerns.

Recruitment practices were robust and ensured only those people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s assessed needs.

People told us that they were satisfied with the assistance they received with the administration of medication.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was effective.

Records showed that staff completed training that equipped them with the

skills they needed to carry out their role. People who received a service told us that staff had the skills they needed to carry out their roles.

People told us that their nutritional needs were assessed and that they were happy with the support they received with meal preparation.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was caring.

People told us that care workers genuinely cared about them and that their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff understood the importance of confidentiality.

There was information available for people about advocacy services should they need this support.

Staff supported people to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People’s needs were assessed and continually reviewed and this meant that staff were able to meet their individual care and support needs.

People’s individual preferences and wishes for care were recorded and these were known and followed by staff.

There was a complaints procedure in place and although people told us that they had not made any complaints, they were confident that any comments or complaints they made would be listened to.

There were opportunities for people who used the service to express their views about the service provided by the agency.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 March 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a long term manager in post and this provided consistency within the service. People who used the service and others told us that the service was well managed

People expressed satisfaction with the consistency of the service and said they knew who would be attending them at each visit.

People told us that the culture of the service was one of openness and transparency and that this was a family orientated business with family values. There was evidence that people’s feedback about the quality of the service was listened to and acted on.