Background to this inspection
Updated
27 January 2015
The inspection was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector and was supported by an expert by experience who contacted families after the inspection. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
The last inspection was carried out in November 2013 and no breaches were found.
Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. We examined notifications received by the Care Quality Commission and we contacted commissioners of the service to obtain their views about the service.
We reviewed information sent to us by the provider in the Provider Information Return (PIR).
We spent time speaking with four people who used the service and visited them in their own homes. We were able to observe how staff interacted with people in their home and also check appropriate records were kept to ensure people received the correct level of support in accordance with their wishes.
This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’
The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.
Updated
27 January 2015
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, and to pilot a new process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This inspection was unannounced. During the visit, we spoke with four people who used the service, three support staff, the registered manager and a senior manager. After the inspection we contacted four relatives via the telephone for their feedback about the service. We also spoke with the commissioning team from Manchester City Council.
The service had a registered manager who had been registered since July 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.
Venesta Domiciliary Care Agency is registered to provide personal care to people living within their own homes or in supported accommodation. The agency mainly works with people with mental health and/or learning disability needs within the Manchester area.
We looked at records held in the office and visited people in their own homes. People told us they felt safe in their home because they were supported by staff who knew them well and who they trusted.
We found people were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. This included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff which were employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.
People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The support plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. Care and support was tailored to meet people’s individual needs and staff knew people well. The support plans included risk assessments. Staff had good relationships with the people they supported and their homes had a relaxed atmosphere.
We observed interactions between staff and people using the service were kind and respectful. Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs and said they were well supported within their roles.
People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about the service. We saw the complaints log which told us the manager investigated and responded to people’s complaints, according to the provider’s complaints procedure.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.