You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 3 February 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 23 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven people who either received a service or were a relative of someone who received a service from the agency. We also spoke with three care workers and the registered persons.

People told us that they were happy with the service they received. One person said, “The carers are more like friends than carers" and another person said, “It is an excellent service all round”. People told us that care workers arrived at the right time and stayed for the correct length of time.

Most of the people who we spoke with told us that they could manage their own medication but those who received some support said that they had never had any concerns about the support they received from staff.

Personnel records evidenced that the agency followed robust recruitment and selection practices when employing staff. Staff completed induction training before they commenced work with people who used the service.

Care workers told us that there were enough staff to support the people who received a service and, because the service employed part time staff, there was usually someone available to cover sick leave or holidays.

There were effective quality monitoring systems in place that gave people who used the service, their relatives and staff the opportunity to comment on the way the agency was operated. This included a complaints system. We saw evidence that the registered persons were proactive in ensuring that they kept up to date with good practice guidelines.

Inspection carried out on 16 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who received a service from the domiciliary care agency. They told us that staff respected their privacy and dignity. One person said, ‘Staff made me feel comfortable from the start’. People told us that the staff did what they wanted them or needed them to do. One person said, ‘The staff are most helpful. I cannot praise them enough’ and another said, ‘I am highly delighted with the service I receive – all of the carers have been excellent’.

The staff that we spoke with told us that their training included information about respecting a person’s privacy and dignity and promoting their independence. Staff told us that they read a person’s diary sheet when they arrived at their home to make sure that they were aware of the latest information about their needs.

The people who we spoke with us told us that staff were well trained. One person said, ‘Yes, they don’t hesitate if they think I need a GP or ambulance’ and another said, ‘They all seem quick to learn’. They all said that they had never had any concerns about the staff. One person said, ‘I have two regular carers and have had a relief carer. They have all been excellent’.

People told us that they were consulted about their satisfaction with the service they received. They said that agency staff were approachable and that they would be comfortable discussing concerns with any of them. All of the people that we spoke with said that they had never had a reason to complain.