We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead - Watford 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 - Watford, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People received care which met their support needs. People were put at the centre of their support.
People felt safe with the support they received. There was enough staff, which meant people received the calls the needed and got to build up relationships with the same staff.
The staff team were passionate about providing high-quality person-centred care and keeping people independent in their own homes.
People received support from health professionals and staff worked collaboratively with outside agencies.
People were positive about the management of the service and feedback from people was always welcome to improve the service given.
The management team had a positive ethos and were dedicated in providing good care.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. (the last inspection report published 12/05/2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. During this inspection we found evidence to support the rating of good.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a manager in post who had applied to become registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe, and were happy with the way they were supported in their homes. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report concerns both within the organisation and externally if necessary. Recruitment practices were safe and effective to help ensure that all staff were suitable to work with people in their own homes.
Relatives and people who were being supported by the service were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of staff who worked in people’s homes. Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and had regular supervision meetings to discuss and review their development and performance.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. People were supported with shopping and meal preparation where required.
Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their needs and took account of their preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s background histories, preferences, routines and personal circumstances.
Staff established what people’s wishes were and obtained their consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way. Information about local advocacy services was available to help people access independent advice if required.
Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they supported and clearly knew them well. People were involved in the planning, delivery and reviews of the care and support provided. People’s personal information was securely maintained within the office.
People were supported to pursue hobbies that they were interested in and that was relevant to their needs. They felt that staff listened to them and responded to any concerns they had in a positive way. Complaints were recorded and investigated thoroughly with learning outcomes used to make improvements where necessary.
Relatives, people and staff were complimentary about the management team and how the service was run and operated. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of services provided. Feedback was obtained and used to make improvements.
We reviewed the arrangements for obtaining consent and found that the provider had an appropriate process in place to obtain consent. We found that care plans were detailed and person centred, and that risk assessments had been undertaken and were reviewed regularly. There was a policy in place to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse. There were clear procedures to recruit and support staff in their workplace and the quality of the service was monitored as a way of ensuring high standards were maintained.
We found the service was well run and managed. Staff had rotas setting out their work each day with enough time allocated to complete the care of the people assigned to them. They were also given enough time to travel between the different people they cared for without being rushed or arriving late. If staff were delayed we were told that they always phoned the person to let them know.
We saw that staff were appropriately recruited and trained to meet the needs of the people they cared for.