You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

We inspected this service on the 12 and 16 January 2017 and the inspection was announced.

Everycare (Wessex) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care support to 47 people. The service was run from an office in the centre of Dorchester.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

All people, relatives and staff spoke about the high quality service and management provided by the service. Without exception, comments made throughout the inspection were positive and reflected that people in receipt of support held the service in high esteem and could not identify any areas the service could improve upon.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from harm and knew how to report any concerns about people's safety or wellbeing. People had individual risk assessments and staff understood the risks people faced and their role in managing these.

People were supported by staff who were recruited safely and were familiar to them. People and relatives felt that staff had the sufficient skills and knowledge to support them .Staff received regular supervision and competency checks to ensure that they had the necessary skills to support people.

The service had clear emergency plans in place to support people and staff understood and used systems to report accidents or injuries so that this information could be used to ensure people were supported safely.

Staff understood what support people needed to manage their medicines safely and these were given as prescribed. There were processes in place to audit the accuracy of recording medicines.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and a wide range of learning opportunities at the service. There was a focus on recruiting the right staff to support people in ways which reflected the values of the service and respected people’s dignity.

Staff understood how to support people to make choices about the care they received, and encouraged people to make decisions about their care. Paperwork was in place to complete assessments and best interests decisions with people when this was required.

Where people received support from staff to eat and drink sufficiently, we saw that staff offered choices and prepared foods in the way people liked. Where people needed support from healthcare professionals, staff highlighted any concerns and requested referrals where appropriate.

People told us that staff who supported them were kind and helpful and we observed that staff supported people in the way they preferred and were aware of people’s likes and dislikes. There was a clear rapport between people and staff and we observed that people were comfortable with staff in their homes.

People’s care plans were person centred and included details about what people liked and how they wanted to be supported. People told us that they were involved in reviews about their care. Reviews were completed regularly and the information updated in people’s care plans in the office and their home.

People told us that they received a rota each week letting them know what staff were due to visit at what times. Where changes were needed to visits, or where staff were running late, people told us that the office made contact to let them know.

Feedback was gathered from people and staff using surveys and satisfaction calls and the information was used to drive improvements at the service.

People, relatives and staff felt that the management of the service was effective and they were able to speak with someone in the office and contact out of hours support easily when needed.

Staff were confident and happy in their roles and spoke highly about the support they received. They were involved in the development of the service and encouraged to raise their ideas or suggestions.

The service had a clear structure, office staff and supervisors had clear responsibilities and information was effectively shared with staff through team meetings, supervisions and emails.

Staff were encouraged to develop their skills and knowledge and to share this with other staff. The service had a range of links with external resources and organisations and were using this to further drive high quality support for people.

Quality assurance measures were regular and the information was used to monitor and drive high quality care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who understood their

responsibilities in protecting people from harm.

People's individual risks were identified and there were

clear plans indicating how to manage these.

People were supported by enough, safely recruited staff to meet their care needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were extremely knowledgeable about the people they were

supporting and received relevant, person centred training for their role.

Supervision processes were in place to monitor staff performance and staff were motivated and encouraged to further develop their skills through additional learning opportunities.

People were supported by staff who worked within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and where needed, decisions were made in people’s best interests.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was caring.

People had a good rapport with staff and we observed that

people were relaxed in the company of staff.

Staff knew how people liked to be supported and offered them

appropriate choices.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People had person centred care plans and were involved in regular reviews about their support.

People were regularly asked to feedback their views about the service.

People were knew how to complain and felt they would be listened to and actions taken.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 February 2017

The service was well led.

The service had clear development plans to further increase staff experience and knowledge and in turn, continue to improve the high quality of the service for people.

People, relatives and staff spoke very highly about the management of the service and told us that the office was easy to contact and staff were helpful.

Staff were confident and clear about their roles and responsibilities and were proud to work for the service.

Staff and management communicated well and staff felt valued and supported in their role.

Quality assurance measures were effective and used to drive high quality care.