We carried out a review of the data available to us about CHS Homecare (Domiciliary Care Agency) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about CHS Homecare (Domiciliary Care Agency), you can give feedback on this service.
CHS Homecare (Domiciliary Care Agency) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their flats within three extra care housing complexes and to people living in their own homes in the local community.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had systems in place to manage risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Staff followed good practice guidelines to prevent the spread of infection and gave people their medicines safely.
Staff received training, supervision and support so that they could do their job well. Staff enjoyed working at CHS Homecare (Domiciliary Care Agency) and were proud to work there. Staff told us that they wouldn’t hesitate to recommend the service and would be happy to have a member of their family receiving the service.
People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring and made sure people’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People, and their relatives were involved in making decisions on the care they wanted. Their preference for how staff delivered their care was recorded in their care plans.
The service was well managed by a registered manager, and six care and support managers, two of whom were based in each of the three schemes. The senior staff team were passionate about giving people a high-quality service and ensuring that staff were support and skilled to deliver the service effectively.
Systems to monitor how well the service was running were carried out. Complaints and concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify the issue. People were asked their view of the service and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 25 April 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection was undertaken by one inspector. At the last inspection on 17 July 2014 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe. This included assisting people safely with their mobility, personal care and medicines.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to safely assist and support people. The recruitment and selection procedure ensured that only suitable staff were employed to provide care and support to people using the service.
The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives as much as possible. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and procedures in the service supported this practice.
People’s needs were assessed, so that their care was planned and delivered in a consistent way. The management staff and care staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their care needs well. Staff offered people choices such choosing the meals they wished to eat. These choices were respected and actioned by staff.
People experienced a good quality of life because staff received training that gave them the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People were supported and assisted with their daily routines, shopping and accessing places of their choice in the community.
People received appropriate support to maintain a healthy diet and were able to choose meals and drinks they preferred. People were assisted to have access to a range of health care professionals, when they needed them.
Staff were clear about the values of the service in relation to providing people with compassionate care in a dignified and respectful manner. Staff knew what was expected of them and staff supported people in a respectful and dignified manner during our inspection.
There were processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People had been consulted about how they wished their care to be delivered and their choices had been respected. People, their relatives and staff were provided with the opportunity to give their feedback about the quality of the service provided.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This was an unannounced inspection.
CHS Homecare provides support to people in their own homes. The majority of support is provided to people who live in one of the provider’s three extra care schemes: Moorlands Court, Dunstan Way or Richard Newcomb Court. Approximately 60 hours support per week is also provided to a smaller number of people who live in their own homes in the locality of the extra care schemes. Extra care schemes are buildings where people live in their own flats and have access to communal areas for recreation and socialising. The provider’s own staff are located within the building and provide support to people who require it in line with agreed support packages.
The agency is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. At the time of our inspection a registered manager was employed at the service.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. The MCA supports staff to act in a person’s best interest when they lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. We found the manager and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA and protected people’s rights appropriately.
The Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) supports staff to act in a person’s best interest when they lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate their understanding of the MCA. Records showed that managers and staff had received training about the subject. This meant people could be assured their rights would be protected.
People and their relatives were happy with, and felt safe with the support provided through the agency. They said staff knew about their support needs, treated them with respect and kindness and maintained their privacy and dignity.
People’s needs were assessed and plans were in place to meet those needs. People’s wishes and preferences were taken into account and recorded in support plans. Risks to people’s health and well-being were identified and plans were in place to manage those risks. People were supported to access healthcare professionals whenever they needed to. Most people told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their support.
Arrangements were in place to recruit new staff so as to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff received induction and on-going training to ensure they had up to date knowledge and skills to provide the right support for people. They also received regular supervision and appraisals in line with the provider’s policy which enabled them to review their practice and identify training needs.
Records showed that the agency had not received any complaints since we last inspected in November 2013. There were records to show how staff managed issues raised informally by people. People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.
There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of support provided for people. There was also a suitable system in place to gather the views and opinions of people who used the service, their relatives and involved professionals.
One relative told us, 'My aunt was badly incontinent but she was always toileted frequently, never smelled of urine and never had a mark on her body. I can't praise the staff enough'. However another relative told us that she was never aware of how long staff actually spent with her mother at each visit as, although staff recorded the time they arrived, they never recorded the time they left.
We spoke with a range of health and social care professionals who knew the extra scheme well. All told us they would recommend it as a place to live and spoke highly of the staff there. One occupational therapist told us, 'We have built up very good working relationships with staff at Moorlands Court and they communicate well with us. Staff are helpful and always seem responsive to our suggestions'. One social worker commented, 'The scheme is very popular and lots of people want to live there. I've never had any concerns about it, and people living there seem to be really happy. It's always clean and the food is fantastic'. A GP told us he would be happy for any of his relatives to live at Moorlands Court.
Staff we spoke with told us they felt well supported in their work and described the training they received as 'Really good'.
We found that the provider was compliant in all outcome areas we assessed. It was clear from all the people we spoke with and the evidence we assessed that this was a well-managed, effective service run by caring staff who had been recruited safely.
There were safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from harm. Staff had received training and they were clear about their responsibility in reporting any incidents or allegations of abuse.
There were thorough induction programmes in place for new staff and mandatory training was provided to ensure that staff were competent to deliver care. Care staff were regularly supervised to monitor their work performance and developmental needs.
Quality assurance procedures were in place for monitoring the running of the agency and people using the service were able to raise any issues and concerns with the management team.
The service employs a number of workers for whom English is not their first language, however only one person told us they had difficulty in understanding these staff.
We spoke with the manager of the local planned care team who knows the service well. He told us he was always highly impressed by it and described it as, "First rate".