You are here

North West Office - Apollo Home Healthcare Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 May 2016

This was an announced inspection which took place on 7 and 8 April 2016. In line with our current methodology we contacted the service two days before our inspection and told them of our plans to carry out a comprehensive inspection. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be at the office.

North West Office - Apollo Home Healthcare Limited is a Domiciliary Care service that provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 26 people using the service. This was the first inspection of this service.

The service has a registered manager who was present on the day 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service told us they felt safe. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. They were also aware of the responsibility to ‘whistle blow’ on colleagues who they thought might be delivering poor care to people. Staff told us they were confident the managers of the service would deal effectively with any safeguarding issues they raised.

There was a robust and safe system of recruitment in place which helped protect people who used the service from unsuitable staff. Staff received the induction, training, support and supervision they required to ensure they had the skills and knowledge needed to carry out their roles effectively.

When a person who used the service needed specialised medical equipment to be used for example a tracheostomy, each staff member was given specific training for each person and assessed as competent before they used the equipment unsupervised.

Care records were very detailed and contained sufficient information to guide staff in how to provide the support people required and how to maintain and promote people’s independence. They contained information about what was important to the person, their needs wishes and preferences. Risk assessments were in place which gave guidance on how to minimise and manage any identified risks. Care records were reviewed regularly to ensure they reflected people’s current support needs.

We found there were safe systems in place for managing people’s medicines.

The service had good systems in place for the prevention and control of infection. Systems were in place to deal with accidents, incidents and emergencies that could affect the provision of care.

People’s rights and choices were respected. We found appropriate arrangements were in place to assess whether people were able to consent to their care. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). These provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

People we spoke with told us that the service was reliable and that visits were never missed. They told us they always received the care they were assessed for. We found the service was reliable and had a good system in place to alert if staff were late for a visit. Visits were planned and organised well and staff had enough time to provide people with the support they required. Each person helped choose the staff that supported them. Each person had a small team of staff that supported them so that there was continuity of care and the staff and people got to know and trust each other.

The service placed great importance on supporting people with their nutritional needs. People we spoke with said that the service worked with all health care professionals involved in their care.

People we spoke with and their relatives told us the staff and managers of the service were caring.

We saw that staff were respectful, caring and had a good rapport with the people who used the service and their relatives.

The registered manager and staff we spoke with were enthusiastic and committed to providing person centred care to the people they supported. They knew people very well and were able to tell us what was important to the people, their preferences, likes and dislikes and the support they required.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff spoke positively and affectionately about the registered manager.

Staff told us that they enjoyed working for the service and felt very supported by the registered manager and other managers within the service. The service had a range of policies and procedures to help guide staff on good practice.

We found there was a robust system of quality assurance. There were a number of weekly and monthly checks and audits. We saw that any issues were highlighted and any action taken was documented. The providers and managers within the service also held monthly risk, safety and governance meetings where any issues found were discussed and actions taken to prevent reoccurrence or improve the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 May 2016

The service was safe.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe with the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and were aware of how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing (reporting poor practice) policy and how to raise any concerns.

Recruitment processes were safe, robust and helped protect people from the risk of unsuitable staff.

We found there were safe systems in place for managing people’s medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 May 2016

The service was effective.

People told us the service was reliable. Visits were well planned and organised.

People’s rights and choices were respected. The provider was meeting the

requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff gained people’s consent before care or support was provided.

Staff received the induction, training and supervision they required to ensure they were able to carry out their roles effectively. Staff were given specific training for any medical equipment and were assessed for competency before they worked unsupervised.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 May 2016

The service was caring.

People we spoke with and their relatives told us the staff and managers of the service were caring and helpful.

Staff were respectful, caring and had a good rapport with the people who used the service and their relatives.

The registered manager and staff we spoke with knew people well. They were enthusiastic and committed to providing person centred care to the people they supported.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 May 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans and risk assessments were very detailed. They contained information about people’s needs, wishes and preferences. They provided staff with the information they needed to promote people’s independence and support people appropriately.

People who used the service helped to choose the staff who supported them. Staff were organised into small teams for each person so there was continuity of care and people got to know each other well.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 May 2016

The service was well-led.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff spoke positively and affectionately about the registered manager.

Staff enjoyed working for the service and felt very supported in their roles.

There was a robust system for monitoring and reviewing the quality of the service.