You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 December 2016

This inspection took place on 20 and 28 October 2016. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available. The service provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 15 people.

There was a registered manager in place who was also one of two directors of the provider company. 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.

The service quality monitoring and quality assurance processes were not embedded into the management of the service. They were not used to identify problems and drive improvement.

We have made a recommendation about quality assurance.

There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. Staff were provided with training and guidance in how to keep people safe and what they should do if they were concerned that a person was at risk or was being abused. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used

the service.

Care plans were person centred and reflected what was important to the person. They provided detailed information for care staff to enable them to provide care and support as the person wanted it. Staff received

People told us that they had good relationships with the staff that supported them. People and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs and people's consent was sought before they were provided with care and support. The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act 2015.

There were sufficient trained staff to meet the service commitments with the management team also providing hands on care. People were supported by staff that arrived on time and treated them with dignity and respect.

People using the service and their relatives knew what to do if they were unhappy with the service they received. They knew who to speak with if they had a concern and were confident that any concerns would be dealt with properly.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 December 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding so that they could recognise the signs of abuse and knew what action to take.

Risks to people were identified and assessments drawn up so that staff knew how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.

There were enough staff to cover calls and ensure people received a reliable service.

Medicines were administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 December 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs.

Staff received the support and training they needed to provide effective care for people.

People received support from staff who respected people's rights to make their own decisions, where possible.

People were supported to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 December 2016

The service was caring.

People valued the relationships they had with care workers and were positive about the care they received.

People felt care workers always treated them with kindness and respect.

People felt listened to and involved in their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 December 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff understood how to support people and responded to any changes in their health.

Staff knew people well and understood their wishes.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident that any concerns would be addressed.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 December 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

Quality monitoring and assurance process were not effective.

The culture of the service was open and friendly. People and staff felt able to share ideas or concerns with the management.