We carried out a review of the data available to us about Yourlife (Bury) 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 Yourlife (Bury), you can give feedback on this service.
Yourlife Bury is a domiciliary care agency providing care to people at Cross Penny Court only at the present time. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection three people were receiving personal care and support from the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service provided reliable and regular staff to support people with their assessed needs, Staff knew about safeguarding and abuse from their induction and on-going training. Each member of staff had planned supervision, training and a yearly appraisal to discuss their work and plan their career.
Each person had a risk assessment which explained the risk to their health in detail and how staff were to assist them to keep safe. People at the service managed their own medicines but staff were trained to administer prescribed medicines should the need arise.
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 asked for their views about and were involved in the planning of their care. People’s care records were individualised and contained information about their interests, history and how they wished their care to be provided.
The service worked well with other agencies such as doctors to ensure people’s needs were met. People were supported to make and attend appointments with healthcare professionals where this was part of their agreed care plan.
The service had a complaints policy and procedure which was provided to people when they commenced using the service. Staff we spoke with told us about how they treated people with care, dignity and respect. This was confirmed by relatives plus compliments that had been recorded about the service.
The service had a senior staff on-call service system in operation which people using the service and staff could call upon at anytime for assistance. The registered manager continued to have a quality assurance system in place which identified areas for development and improvement. People were given an opportunity to feedback their views on the service and their comments were acted on.
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 (report published 17 July 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.
The inspection took place on 13 June 2017 and was announced. Twenty four hours’ notice was given, as this was a domiciliary care service and we wanted to make sure that people would be available to speak with us.
The service has a registered manager. 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.
Everyone who used the service was complimentary about the staff team and the quality of care they received. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to safely meet people's needs and people were supported by a small team of regular, reliable staff who knew their needs.
Staff were able to tell us about safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities to identify and report any concerns they might have. Risks to people’s health , welfare and safety had been assessed and risk assessments produced to guide staff in how to reduce these risks and keep people safe from harm.
There were clear arrangements in place for the recruitment of new staff which included checks on their suitability and character. Staff received induction and training to enable them to meet the needs of people using the service. Refresher training was provided to all staff on an ongoing basis to ensure that staff skills and knowledge were kept up to date and in line with best practice. . There was a system of supervision, appraisals and competency checks to ensure that staff were putting their training into practice.
The manager was aware of the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was aware of the process to follow when people were unable to make specific decisions about their care. The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The service supported people with decision-making and involved people’s family members or representatives in the decision-making process.
Staff had been provided with sufficient guidance and information within care records on people’s needs. Care and plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and accurately reflected people’s care and support needs including their likes and dislikes.
Staff enjoyed working at the service and were well supported by the registered manager who they found approachable and accessible.
There was a complaints procedure in place to address any formal complaints. Feedback from people who used the service was actively sought and the information was used to improve the service people received
The provider undertook checks on the quality of care and there were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Action was taken to make any necessary improvements to develop the service.