Archived: Ansom Home Care Limited

Updated 12 January 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 inspection took place on 2 December 2015 and was announced 48 hours in advance in accordance with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care services. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. The service had recently moved premises and this was the first inspection at their new location. They were previously inspected at their previous address in October 2013 when it was found to be fully compliant with the regulations.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, ten relatives, nine members of care staff, the two registered managers, director, administrator and two senior carers. We also inspected a range of records. These included five care plans, five staff files, training records, staff visit schedules, meeting minutes and the services policies and procedures.

Updated 12 January 2016

Ansom Home Care provides personal care to people who live in their own homes in the St Austell, Bodmin and Wadebridge areas of Cornwall. At the time of our inspection the team of 27 care staff were providing support to approximately 48 predominantly older people.

Everyone told us they felt safe and were well cared for by Ansom home care. People’s comments included; “I feel very safe”, “the carers are very good,” and, “They are kind and caring and care for me so well.” People told us they had “never” experienced a missed care visit. The service had robust and effective procedures in place to ensure that all planned care visits were provided.

We found people’s visits were provided on time, staff visit schedules included appropriate travel time and staff consistently provided the care visits of the correct visit length. People told us their staff were on time, they were never rushed and staff stayed for the correct duration of their visit. People said it was “rare” that staff were late, commenting, “If they are late, they call us to tell us they are on their way. It’s understandable why they are late because they get held up at their last visit because of an emergency or because of traffic.”

The registered manager was confident about the action to take if they had any safeguarding concerns and had liaised with the safeguarding teams as appropriate. Risk assessments clearly identified any risk and gave staff guidance on how to minimise the risk. They were designed to keep people and staff safe while allowing people to develop and maintain their independence.

People said staff were well trained and understood how to meet their specific care needs. Training records showed staff had been provided with all the necessary training which had been refreshed regularly. Staff told us they had ‘lots of training” and found the training to be beneficial to their role.

The service’s systems for the induction of new members of staff were effective and fully complied with the requirements of the Care Certificate. Training was provided in accordance with the 15 fundamental standards. The service commissioned a training academy to provide mandatory and bespoke training to its staff team. Staff said they were encouraged to attend training to develop their skills, and their career.

People were supported by stable and consistent staff teams who knew people well and had received training specific to their needs. People told us they were introduced to new staff before they supported them in their home and said they had consistent carers to support them and had built up positive relationships with staff. Efforts were made to match staff with people by identifying any shared interests and hobbies.

Care records were up to date, had been regularly reviewed and accurately reflected the person’s care and support needs. Details of how the person wished to be supported with their care needs were highly personalised and provided clear information to enable staff to provide appropriate and effective support. The service’s risk assessment procedures were designed to enable people to take risks while providing appropriate protection.

The service’s visit schedules were well organised and at the time of our inspection there were a sufficient number of staff available to provide people’s care visits in accordance with their preferences. This meant people received home visits at their preferred time.

The management team had a clear set of values which was also apparent in our discussions with staff. The registered manager provided effective leadership and support to the staff team. Staff told us their managers were; “understanding”, “approachable”, and “motivating”. While people told us the service was “well managed”.