Archived: Enfield Domiciliary Care Agency - Durants Road

At our last inspection in February 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

There was good overall feedback about the service, from people using it and their relatives. We found people were treated with kindness and compassion, and that they were given emotional support when needed. The service ensured people's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People’s needs were identified and responded to well. The service was effective at working in co-operation with other organisations to deliver good care and support. This included where people’s needs had changed, and where people needed ongoing healthcare support.

The support staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Staff told us they really enjoyed working in the service and spoke positively about the culture and management of the service. Staff told us that they were encouraged to openly discuss any issues. Staff described management as supportive. Staff confirmed they were able to raise issues and make suggestions about the way the service was provided.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s views on the service were regularly sought and acted on

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home

The registered manager and staff ensured everyone was supported to maintain good health.

Staff were well supported with training and supervision which helped them to ensure they provided effective care for people.

The registered manager and staff knew what they should do if anyone made a complaint.

Person centred care was fundamental to the service and staff made sure people were at the centre of their practice. Care plans focused on the whole person, and assessments and plans were regularly updated.

The service was well led. There was a clear set of values in place which all of the staff put into practice. The management team had developed robust quality assurance checks, to make sure standards of care were maintained. There was an open culture and staff said they felt well motivated and valued by all of the managers.

Enfield Domiciliary Care Agency - Durants Road provides support to people living at home. There were approximately 32 people using the service at the time of our inspection. However, the registered manager told us that only a small number of people need support with personal care. The provision of personal care is regulated by the Care Quality Commission.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were well treated by the staff and felt safe and trusted them. The service had taken a creative approach to the way it involved people in keeping them safe and challenged discrimination. The approach they had taken had been embedded into their practice.

People who used the service were encouraged to take an active part in local initiatives including raising awareness of hate crimes. This included identifying what a hate crime was and how to reporting these to the appropriate authorities. People had also taken part in staff training in raising staff awareness of hate crimes. Staff could explain how they would recognise and report abuse and they understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

In conjunction with people, the service assessed risks to people’s safety and sought to keep them safe while empowering them to lead as full a life as possible. The management had thought about and discussed with people ways to mitigate risks and helped people to look at and assess their own safety and decisions around risk taking with support from staff.

People told us that staff came at the time they were supposed to or they would phone to say they were running a bit late.

The service was following robust recruitment procedures to make sure that only suitable staff were employed at the agency.

People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the staff and told us they had confidence in their abilities and staff told us that they were provided with training in the areas they needed in order to support people effectively.

Staff understood that it was not right to make choices for people when they could make choices for themselves and people’s ability around decision making, preferences and choices were recorded in their support plans and followed by staff.

People told us they were happy with the support they received with eating and drinking and staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and preferences.

People confirmed that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the planning of their care and support. Support plans included the views of people using the service and their relatives.

People and their relatives told us that the management and staff were quick to respond to any changes in their needs and support plans reflected how people were supported in accordance with their current needs and preferences.

People told us they had no complaints about the service but said they felt able to raise any concerns without worry.

The agency had a number of quality monitoring systems including surveys for people using the service and their relatives. People we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this. They felt the service took their views into account in order to improve service delivery.