You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

This inspection took place on 24, 25 and 26 May 2016 and was announced.

Sarum Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care service providing care and support for people living in their own homes. There were 63 people using the service at the time of our inspection. The service provided support to older people some of whom may be living with dementia. They also supported people living with physical disabilities and sensory impairment

There was a registered manager in post. 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 were supported at end of life by staff who were caring and compassionate. This approach enabled people to receive care and treatment that met with their known end of life care choices and wishes.

People were safe because staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep them safe from harm.

Staff had a good knowledge of the provider’s whistleblowing policy and procedures which meant they were able to raise concerns to protect people from unsafe care.

People were supported by staff that promoted their independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

Risks to people had been assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people’s individual needs were being met safely.

Recruitment processes were robust to make sure people were cared for by suitable staff. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe from harm.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their responsibilities to ensure that people who were unable to make their own decisions about their care and support were protected.

Risk assessments were in place where people had been encouraged and supported to take responsibility for their own medicines.

There was an effective complaints system in place. People told us they were confident to raise any issues about their care and that they would be listened to and addressed.

People told us the service was well-led and managed by an effective and organised management team. People had confidence in the provider and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

The culture in the service was open, inclusive and transparent. Staff were supported, felt valued and were listened to by the management team. Staff were confident to raise any concerns they had and bring forward ideas that could make improvements to the service.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was safe. People were safe because staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep them safe from harm.

Risks to people had been assessed to ensure people’s individual needs were being met safely.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was effective. Staff had received training to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their responsibilities to ensure that people who were unable to make their own decisions about their care and support were protected.

People were supported with their dietary needs by staff and given choices regarding what they wanted to eat.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was caring. People at end of life were cared for by staff that were caring, compassionate and supportive to both people and relatives. People received care and treatment that met with their known end of life care choices and wishes. The provider worked in partnership with other health care professionals to ensure a pain free and dignified death.

People were supported by staff who promoted their independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

People spoke highly about the quality of the service they received and told us staff were caring and understanding of their individual needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was responsive. People received care that was based on an assessment of their needs and preferences.

People were fully involved in all aspects of their care and support and told us that staff were responsive to their needs.

There was an effective complaints system in place. People told us they were confident to raise any issues about their care and that they would be listened to and addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was well led. People had confidence in the provider and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

The culture in the service was open, inclusive and transparent. Staff were supported, felt valued and were listened to by the management team.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.