Archived: Home Instead Doncaster

Updated 30 June 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This announced inspection took place on 24 May 2017 and was conducted by one adult social care inspector. The provider was given short notice of the visit to the office, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.

This service supports people who live in their own homes. We visited the agency’s office and looked at the care records for four people who used the service. We also looked at a range of records relating to how the service was managed; these included training records, recruitment, quality assurance audits and policies and procedures.

To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on in the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service, such as notifications. We received a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.

At the inspection we spoke with the franchise owner who was the Nominated Individual (NI), two senior care givers and two members of the management team, involved in the overall management and administration of the service. After the inspection we spoke on the telephone with four relatives of people who used the service to gain their views.

Updated 30 June 2017

Home Instead Doncaster is a Domiciliary Care Agency. The offices are based in an area of Doncaster that is easily accessible by public transport. People who use the service like to be referred to as clients and staff are referred to as care givers. At the time of the inspection the service was being provided to 10 people, all of whom were either fully or partly funding their own care. .

This announced inspection took place on 24 May 2017 and was conducted by one adult social care inspector. The provider was given short notice of the visit to the office, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. This was to make sure there would be someone in the office. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2015.

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 Nominated Individual (NI) told us they were making all efforts to recruit a suitable manager, but that they had so far been unsuccessful, because of their very exacting standards. They were in day to day control of the agency and had decided to apply to register with Commission as the manager.

People praised the quality of care they received, and told us that staff treated them with respect and cared for them in a way which met their needs.

Risk assessments for health needs or environmental hazards helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service, but did not restrict people’s lifestyles.

Plans of care showed staff had taken account of people’s wishes, were individual to each person, and were regularly reviewed.

Although people who used the service lived in their own houses and chose what they ate, staff were trained in nutrition and safe food handling to give advice to people about their meals. Where necessary, staff supported people to eat and drink. Some people also received support to do their shopping.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. The people we spoke with said they did not have any concerns but knew how to contact the office if they did.

Arrangements were in place to make sure medicines were safely administered. Staff had been trained in medicines administration although for the most part, people were encouraged to manage their medicines themselves, or families undertook the task. Staff either prompted or administered medicines to help people remain well if this was part of their care package.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Staff had received appropriate training in relation to protecting people from the risk of abuse.

Recruitment processes were robust, and staff were suitably inducted, trained and supported to provide effective care.

People who used the service were supported to follow a healthy eating lifestyle because staff received nutrition training. Some people did not require support to prepare or buy food. People who did were supported by staff who had been trained in food safety.

The provider acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act, and assessments of people’s capacity were undertaken when their care was planned. Staff had received appropriate training in relation to this.

Staff praised the training that they received and told us it equipped them to undertake their role. Training records showed that staff received a range of training and many held nationally recognised qualifications in care.

People were involved in planning their care. Care plans were personalised so that they met each person’s needs and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed to make sure that they were suitable to people’s needs. Records showed that people’s dignity and privacy was upheld when receiving care and staff told us that this was the most important part of their work.

There was a comprehensive complaints system which was available to people using the service, and we saw that where complaints had been received they were responded to in a prompt and thorough manner.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the managers, who were approachable.

The agency often asked for people’s views around how the service was performing and we saw evidence that the manager responded to their views.

The provider undertook regular audits and assessments to make sure the service provided was of a high quality, and there were systems in place for addressing any shortfalls and implementing improvements.