We carried out a review of the data available to us about Custom Home Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Custom Home Care, you can give feedback on this service.
Custom Home Care is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people with a range of support needs, living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing care and support to 36 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People continued to receive good quality care from Custom Home Care. Risks to people were assessed and minimised, and people were protected from abuse. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines, as prescribed, from staff who were trained to provide this support safely. People were protected from the spread of infection.
The service was predominantly well run and staff told us the manager was supportive and operated an 'open-door' policy. The management team completed a range of checks on the safety and quality of the service on an ongoing basis, to ensure any necessary improvements were identified and implemented. The new manager understood elements of the service needed to improve and concerns identified at inspection, the manager was already aware of and actively working to address. We made a recommendation about the management of staff training requirements as records were sometimes disorganised .
People were supported by staff who were competent and skilled. Staff asked people for their consent before providing them with any care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The service’s policies and systems supported this practice. Staff supported people to maintain their health, and they referred people to community health professionals when necessary.
People consistently told us staff were kind and they received support from the same core group of staff, which promoted good continuity of care. People said they felt well-treated by staff and had opportunity to give feedback about the service at regular intervals. Staff supported people to maintain their independence and to remain involved in decisions about their care. People's privacy was respected.
People knew how to complain about the service if they needed to. People’s communication needs were assessed, and their care records contained information which supported staff to communicate with people effectively. People’s care records were personalised. This supported staff to get to know people and provide care in accordance with their preferences.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 28 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Custom Home Care provides domiciliary care to adults in the community. The office is in Sheffield and is accessible by public transport. At the time of the inspection the service was being provided to around 40 people, all of whom were receiving personal care.
There was no registered manager in post at the time of the 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. The previous registered manager had left and the provider had appointed a manager who told us they were in the process of applying to be registered with CQC.
People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and people and their relatives told us they had been involved in formulating and updating the care plans. The information included in the care records we saw was individualised and clearly identified people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.
We found people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were identified and their care package amended to meet their assessed needs. Where people needed support taking their medication this was administered by staff who had been trained to carry out this role. The service had clear medication policies to ensure staff could offer support to people safely.
We found the service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people being supported. This included consistently providing the same care staff, who visited people on a regular basis.
There was an appropriate recruitment checks in place when employing new staff. We found staff had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by regular refresher training to update their knowledge and skills. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse appropriately. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse.
Staff told us they felt well supported and received an annual appraisal of their work performance. Staff had also received supervision sessions and spot checks to assess their capabilities and offer support.
The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.
People were confident to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw the complaints process was written in a suitable format for people who used the service.
People were encouraged to give their views about the quality of the care provided to help drive up standards. Quality monitoring systems were in place and the manager had overall responsibility to ensure lessons were learned and action was taken to continuously improve the service.