You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 August 2016

The inspection took place on 16 August 2016 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office. This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service which was registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2014.

Hallam 24 Healthcare is a domiciliary care service. They are registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting people with a variety of care needs including older people and people living with dementia. Care and support was co-ordinated from the services office which is based in Barnsley.

There is a registered manager which oversees services provided from the office. 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.

At the time of our inspection there were five people using the service. We spoke on the telephone with two people who used the service and three relatives. We asked people about their experiences of using the agency. People we spoke with told us they were entirely happy with the service provided.

People told us they felt safe in their own homes and staff were available to offer support when needed, to help them maintain their independence. One person told us, “The staff are loving and kind. Nothing is too much trouble for them.”

People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and they told us they had been involved in formulating and updating their care plans. We found the information contained in the care records we sampled was individualised and identified people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

We found people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care package amended to meet their changing circumstances. Where people needed support taking their medication this was undertaken in a timely way by staff that had been trained to carry out this role.

The recruitment of staff was safe which ensured staff were employed with all of the required employment checks. There was sufficient trained staff employed to ensure people received their care consistently. People told us that they received support from the same care workers.

People were able to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw the service user guide included ‘how to make a complaint.’ This was written in a suitable format for people who used the service. Relative we spoke with told us they were confident that any concerns that they needed to make would be dealt with swiftly.

People were encouraged to give their views about the quality of the care provided to help drive up standards. The quality assurance systems were effective in identifying areas for improvement. This gave the service an opportunity to learn from events and improve the service for people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 August 2016

The service was safe

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse.

Individual risks had been assessed and identified as part of the support and care planning process.

The recruitment of staff was robust which meant the right staff were employed to meet the needs of people safely.

People were supported to take their medication safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 August 2016

The service was effective

Staff had a programme of training and were trained to care and support people who used the service safely and to a good standard.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to ensure the rights of people with limited mental capacity to make decisions were respected.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals, such as GPs, and hospital appointments.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 August 2016

The service was caring

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received to help them maintain their independence. It was clear from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of people’s care and support needs and knew people well.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People had been encouraged to be involved in planning their care. Care plans were individualised so they reflected each person’s needs and preferences. Care records had been reviewed and updated in a timely manner.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. Where concerns had been raised the provider had taken appropriate action to resolve the issues.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 August 2016

The service was well led.

There was evidence that a system or process was being operated to effectively ensure the monitoring and improvement of the service.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities, and they felt supported by managers at the service