You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 February 2018

The office inspection activity took place on 14 and 18 December 2017 and we carried out further checks on the service which included telephone calls to people using the service, their relatives and professionals which concluded on 12 January 2018. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice of our inspection, because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the location's office when we visited.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and also in specialist housing (retirement living services). It provides a service to older adults. 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.

At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care to 121 people. Most people were living within one of four retirement living schemes, however a small number of people were supported in their own homes in the community.

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.

We saw that staff carried out support in a safe way whilst maintaining people’s independence and dignity. People’s risks were assessed, and people were kept safe as staff had a good understanding of the types of abuse and knew how to report suspected abuse.

People received their medicines safely. Medicine records were completed and staff understood the procedures they needed to follow when supporting people with their medicines.

People were involved in their care and consented to their plans of care. Where people were unable to make certain decisions, we saw that these were made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves.

People told us staff supported them in a caring and kind and respectful way. They told us Staff supported them to make choices about their care.

People told us they knew how to complain and the provider had an effective system in place to investigate and respond to any concerns or complaints.

The provider promoted an open culture. Staff told us that the management were approachable and that they listened to them. People were encouraged to feedback their experiences and these were acted on to improve the quality of care provided.

We found that the registered manager had robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, and strived for continuous improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 February 2018

The service was safe.

People told us that they felt safe. Risks were assessed in a way that kept people safe whilst promoting their independence. Staff and the registered manager understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of harm. People were kept safe because there was enough suitably skilled staff available to meet their needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 February 2018

The service was effective.

People told us that they consented to their care. Processes were in place which ensured decisions were made in people’s best interests if they needed support to make decisions, and in line with The Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

People were supported with their health needs and staff had received appropriate training to carry out their role effectively.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 February 2018

The service was caring.

People told us that staff were kind, caring and respectful.

People were treated with dignity as choice was encouraged and staff were sensitive when they provided support. Staff we spoke with told us how they enjoyed supporting people by providing a good quality of care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People told us that they were involved in their care and staff provided consistent support. The electronic monitoring system ensured consistency of care, and we found that staff knew people’s preferences and were knowledgeable about the support needs of people.People were supported by staff to maintain relationships.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 February 2018

The service was well led.

People told us that they felt the service was well led. There was an open culture and staff were able to approach the registered manager if they had any concerns, and felt supported by them. The provider gained regular feedback from people who used the service and acted on this to make improvements. The registered manager had undertaken audits to monitor the quality of the service and to continually improve the service.