You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

Availl - Bradford provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Bradford area. This was an announced inspection which took between 19 and 23 December 2016. At the time of the inspection, the service was delivering personal care to 18 people.

At the last inspection in December 2015 we were unable to provide the service with a rating as it had only been operating for 6 weeks and there was insufficient evidence of sustained good practice. However we did not identify any breaches of regulation.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

People and relatives spoke positively about the service. They said a high quality, personalised and reliable service was provided which met people’s care needs.

People said they felt safe in the company of staff. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to identify and act on allegations of abuse.

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear and personalised plans of care put in place to help keep people safe. Following incidents, action was taken to learn from them and reduce the risk of a re-occurrence.

There were suitable quantities of staff deployed to ensure people received a reliable and timely care service. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Medicines were managed in a safe and proper way. The details of the medicines people took was clearly recorded and consistent records were kept of the support provided.

People told us staff had the right skills and knowledge to care for them. They said they received care and support from a consistent group of staff. Staff received regular training which was kept up-to-date and told us they were well supported.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Where required, people were supported appropriately to eat and drink.

People and relatives all said staff had a kind and caring attitude and treated them with a respectful and dignified manner. People received care from familiar faces and this had allowed people to develop good positive relationships with care staff.

People told us they felt listened to and had their comments or concerns acted on.

People’s care needs were assessed and clear and person centred care plans put in place which were subject to regular review. People told us care needs were met by the service.

People told us how staff took the time to chat with them and provide companionship as well as delivering more task based care and support.

Overall, people told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the correct amount of time, this was confirmed by the records we reviewed.

Complaints were logged and investigated and used as an opportunity to improve the service.

We found a positive, open and person centred culture existed within the service with management and staff committed to meeting the needs of people who used the service.

Systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People’s feedback was regularly sought and used to make further improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed in a safe and proper way.

People told us they felt safe in the company of staff. Safeguarding procedures were in place which were understood by staff. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear plans put in place to help keep people safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to ensure a reliable and consistent service. New staff were subject to robust recruitment procedures to help ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was effective.

People praised staff and said they had the right skills and knowledge to care for them. Staff received a range of training which was kept up-to-date.

People were supported to maintain good nutrition and hydration.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Caring

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was caring.

People told us staff had a caring and kind attitude and treated them with dignity and respect.

People received care and support from a consistent group of carers which helped the development of positive and caring relationships.

People told us they felt listened to and had any concerns acted on.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care needs were assessed prior to using the service. People told us care needs were met by the service.

Overall people said the service was reliable and timely and they received care and support at the times they needed it.

Complaints were logged, investigated and measures put in place to learn from them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 January 2017

The service was well led.

We found a positive and person centred culture existed within the service. People were all satisfied with the service and said it was reliable.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and were sufficient for the size of the organisation.

People’s feedback was used to continuously improve the service provided.