You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The inspection took place on 22 March 2016 and was announced. The service is registered to provide personal care and is a domiciliary service. There were twenty people receiving care at the time of the inspection.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The service was outstandingly well-led which was demonstrated by how the staff were supported and how well the service was organised to ensure people received high standards of care according to their assessed needs. People told us the service was great, while another said it could not better. Communication between the service and people were good. People told us they liked having the same carers and said they went the extra mile for you when needed. Another person said they could not praise the staff enough. They said the service provided the two qualities they were seeking which were it was trustworthy and reliable. The care plans were person-centred written to clearly identify the support required alongside what the person could do for themselves.

Staff had attended training designed to help them recognise abuse and know what actions to take to protect people as far as reasonably possible from actual or potential harm, or abuse. Staff had a very good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. People using the service were supported by a sufficient number of suitably experienced staff. The manager carried out appropriate recruitment checks before staff began work with the service. Staff had been recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred. As part of the assessment process to determine if the service could meet the individual’s needs, people were asked about their preferences and choices.

The service had a medicines policy, staff had received training and systems were in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals. Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in particular Best Interest Meetings.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between people and staff. Staff responded to people’s needs in an understanding and empathic manner. People’s choices were respected as was their privacy and dignity. The care plans were written to take account of people’s needs and to promote and maintain independence. People were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support, as were family members with their permission.

Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent in meeting people’s needs. Staff were supported and supervised in their roles and had annual appraisals to discuss their performance and career development. Part of the supervision process was for the service to carry out spot checks of the care delivery.

Staff supported people with their health care needs including where required monitoring of people’s food and fluid intake. The service reviewed people’s care to ensure the service continued to meet their needs and they worked with other professionals to ensure needs were met as comprehensively as possible. The service arranged community activities for the people to meet each other and take part in at no cost to themselves

We considered the service was good in the way that it had developed person-centred care plans. In turn this had led to identifying that people had become isolated in their own homes within the community and the service had started to support people to address these issues through arranging and linking into local events.

The staff told us there was an open culture as the manager was approachable and enabled people who used the service to express their views. People were supported to report any concerns or complaints and they felt they would be taken seriously. People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to be involved in decisions about the service. The service had systems in place to check the quality of the care provided which included surveys to gauge and understand people’s views who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected as far as reasonably possible by staff who had received training to recognise abuse and how to report the matter.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them as safe as possible.

There were appropriate systems in place for handling and administering medicines.

There were robust recruitment practices in place to help ensure only suitable staff were employed. .

Effective

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by motivated staff. The induction for new staff was robust and all staff received regular and effective supervision and support.

People’s rights were protected. Staff and management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best Interest meetings.

People were supported to maintain good health and an appropriate diet for their needs.

The service worked with other professionals as required to support people to meet their needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was caring.

The service provided support to people using positively written and regularly reviewed care plans.

People were treated with respect by staff who were kind and compassionate.

The service had a confidentiality policy and staff received training to help them provide dignified care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was responsive.

There was an assessment process in place so that people received personalised care and support from their individual care.

Staff knew people well because they were organised to work with a small number of people using the service.

Any issues, complaints or ideas for improvement were listened to and addressed promptly.

The service had supported people to re-engage with their local community

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 August 2016

The service was well led.

The manager set the example of how the service was to perform and was approachable to people using the service and staff.

The service had clear values which were put into practice by organised and caring staff.

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

The service had built links within the local community.