We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead Wigan 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 Home Instead Wigan, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Home Instead Senior Care Wigan Limited is a community based care provider that provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to keep people safe. Staff had been recruited safely and were trained and supported to provide the best possible care for people. Medication was administered safely and staff supported people following good infection control practices.
People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
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 policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and people’s equality and diversity needs were respected. People's support needs were assessed regularly and planned to ensure they received the support they needed.
The management team had good oversight of the service and audits were completed regularly. Surveys were completed to gather information about people’s views. Spot checks were carried out to ensure the quality of the service was maintained.
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 27 September 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.
The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provides a rating for those key questions. Only parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions were considered, and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Home Instead Senior Care Wigan on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
The service provides care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection 28 people were receiving support of which seven people received personal care. We only looked at the service for people receiving personal care as this is the regulated activity that is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
At the time of our inspection, there was no registered manager in post. The service had a manager that had commenced in post 10 July 2017. They had commenced the process of applying to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to register and their application was in progress. 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.
For the purpose of this report we have referred to care staff as caregivers in line with the services terminology when referring to care staff.
We found people’s care files were comprehensive, well organised and easy to follow. Risks to people’s health, wellbeing and safety had been assessed and plans formulated to mitigate identified risks.
The management of medicines promoted people’s safety. There was a detailed medicines policy and procedure in place that had been recently updated in line with best practice.
The service had a robust recruitment process to help ensure caregivers employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
There were sufficient numbers of caregivers deployed to ensure people's needs were met. Care and support was designed around the person and caregivers were recruited based on people’s needs. Caregivers were matched to the person they supported to promote positive relationships to develop.
Caregivers understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and considered this when supporting people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions. People’s power of attorney (POA’s) were clearly identified in people’s care files so staff had access to the required information.
Caregivers were passionate about the care they provided and spoke fondly of the people they supported.
Support plans were person centred and caregivers had a comprehensive knowledge of people and their needs which demonstrated a commitment to people receiving person centred care. People were encouraged and supported to pursue their individual hobbies and interests and caregivers actively sought opportunities to promote people’s independence.
Management demonstrated a commitment to caregivers to continue their professional development to maintain skills and deliver best practice. Caregivers were supported through induction, supervision and training to promote better outcomes for people.
People who used the service were fully involved with decisions about their care and we were told they were given choices in relation to their care delivery and their personal preferences were taken into account.
There was a complaints policy in place and although at the time of the inspection there had not been any complaints received, there were systems in place to track complaints.
Feedback was sought from people, relatives and caregivers through surveys and quality assurance systems.
Leadership was strong and management demonstrated a clear vision of what was required to provide a quality service. The service worked in partnership with other agencies and people were signposted to community services to promote better outcomes for people receiving support.
Audit systems were effective and in place to monitor the quality of the service delivered.