Homebird Care Head Office

Updated 29 August 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in five ‘supported living’ settings so that they can live as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with five people who used the service. We spoke with five members of staff including the registered manager, assistant manager, home manager, care co-ordinator and a care worker.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. We also checked a variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the registered manager to validate evidence found.

Updated 29 August 2019

About the service

Homebird Care Ltd is a domiciliary care service which delivers personal care to people living in their own homes as part of a supportive living model, specialising in supporting people living with a learning disability and mental health conditions. The provider had expanded and had recently moved headquarters to 29 Hope St, whilst still keeping 88 Beech Lane as the location. We attended 29 Hope St for the purpose of the inspection, at the request of the registered manager. The registered office is based in Liverpool city centre in well equipped offices above a community hub. At the time of our inspection, 19 people were receiving services based across six houses. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People we spoke with told us the service was safe. The service had policies and procedures around safeguarding, whistleblowing and discrimination. Staff told us they received safeguarding training and knew who to inform if they had any concerns. People’s care and support was assessed before they started to receive care from the service. The service had sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and where possible people were supported by regular staff team who knew people well. Medicines were managed safely. Safe infection control practices were in place.

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. One person had a Court of Protection in place and staff were aware of what this meant. People were asked for consent before care was offered. Peoples confidential information was kept secure. Staff worked closely with other professionals to support people using the service. Staff had received an induction and training was ongoing. Staff reported, and records confirmed regular supervision and appraisals were taking place.

People told us they were treated with kindness and were positive about the staff’s attitude. People said, “I couldn’t ask for better staff.” People were involved in their care plans and review meetings where they wanted to be. Advocacy services were highlighted in homes and people’s privacy, dignity and independence were supported by the service.

People received person centred care and support from staff who knew people well. People’s communication needs had been assessed and staff knew how best to communicate to people. People were involved in social and leisure time and there was a range of activities available. People knew who to raise a concern and the service had policies and procedure in place.

The service had an experienced registered manager in post and there was a clear organisational structure. Audits were taking place in a variety of different areas to support the quality of the service. The service engaged with people and staff through regular house meeting, questionnaires and team meetings. We saw partnership working with health and social care professionals which supported peoples needs.

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 October 2016).

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.