You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 September 2016

The inspection took place on 16 and 17 August 2016 and was announced. The service provides personal care to adults of which the majority are older people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people receiving a service from the agency.

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.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed regularly, however care plans did not consistently provide a detailed description of the actions needed to reduce an identified risk. Staff understood what they needed to do to minimise risks to people. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would review the plans associated with identified risk and ensure sufficient detail was available in the care plans.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed and any necessary actions had been taken to help reduce further risk.

People were involved in decisions about the risks they lived with and supported in ways that ensured their freedom of choice was respected. A business continuity plan was in place and included managing risks associated with extreme weather, financial issues and absence of the registered manager.

People were supported by staff that had been trained in how to recognise signs of abuse and knew the actions they needed to take if they suspected abuse. People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely and all the necessary checks had been completed

People were supported by enough staff to meet their agreed requirements and by staff whom they were familiar with. Staff understood people’s individual communication needs and people and their relatives felt involved in decisions about their care. Information about advocacy services was available to people if needed..

People had their medicines stored and administered safely by staff that had been trained and regularly had their competencies checked.

People received care from staff who had received an induction and on-going training that provided them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively. Staff were supported in their roles,received regular supervision and had opportunities for personal development.

Staff understood the need to seek people’s consent before providing care. When people had been assessed as not having the mental capacity to make a decision then a best interest decision had been made in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2008.

People were supported by staff who understood their eating and drinking requirements and who also supported people to access health care when needed.

People, their families and other professionals with knowledge of the service described all the staff as caring, punctual and described the service as personal. People had their dignity and privacy respected. Staff had a good knowledge of people and were able to tell us about their life histories, family and friends involved in their lives as well as events that were important to them.

People had care plans that were individual and centred around how the person wanted to be supported. Descriptions of how to support a person included details of the person’s level of independence. Reviews of care and support needs happened in people’s homes and were shared with families if people wanted them to be. This meant that people were being supported by staff who had the knowledge and confidence to respond to peoples changing needs.

A complaints process was in place and people felt if they needed to use it they would be listened too.

Staff spoke enthusiastically and were positive about the organisation and the registered manager, felt appreciated and were empowered to share their thoughts and ideas. People and relatives spoke of the service being well organised and efficient. Audits had been completed by the management team and had been effective in providing data about practice. The service used the expertise of other recognised professional organisations to support practice development and continually improve the quality of service people received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 September 2016

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed regularly however care plans did not consistently provide a detailed description of the actions needed to reduce an identified risk.

People were supported by staff that had been trained in how to recognise signs of abuse and knew the actions they needed to take if they suspected abuse.

Staff who had been recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet peoples agreed care needs.

People had their medicines stored and administered safely by staff that had been trained and regularly had their competencies checked.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received an induction and on-going training that provided them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff were supported in their roles and received regular supervision and opportunities for personal development.

The service was working within the principles of the mental capacity act.

People were supported by staff who understood their eating and drinking requirements.

People had timely and effective access to healthcare.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 September 2016

The service was caring.

People, their families and other professionals described the staff as caring and felt that their dignity and privacy was respected.

Staff had a good knowledge of people and life events that were important to them.

People’s individual communication needs were understood and people and their relatives felt involved in decisions about their care.

Information about advocacy services was available to people if needed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People had care plans that were individual and centred around how they wanted to be supported

People were being supported by staff who had the knowledge and confidence to respond to their changing needs.

A complaints process was in place and people felt if they needed to use it they would be listened too.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 September 2016

The service was well led.

Staff spoke enthusiastically and were positive about the organisation

Felt appreciated and were empowered to share their thoughts and ideas.

The service was described by people, their relatives, staff and other professionals as organised and efficient.

Notifications had been sent to CQC and other regulatory bodies in a timely way.

Audits had been completed by the management team and had been effective in providing data about practice.

The registered manager recognised the importance of the expertise of other recognised professional organisations to support practice development and continually improve the quality of service people received.