Background to this inspection
Updated
15 May 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger adults, older people, people with a sensory impairment or physical disability and people living with dementia.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service three days’ notice of the inspection site visit. This was to enable the registered manager to gain people’s consent for us to contact them for feedback about the service before we visited the office.
Inspection site visit activity started on 14 March 2019 and ended on 19 March 2019. We visited the office location on 19 March 2019 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
Before the inspection we spoke on the telephone with one person who was supported by the service, four relatives and friends and one person’s legal representative, to gain their feedback about the care provided. We also spoke with three care staff. We contacted the local authority quality assurance, contract monitoring and safeguarding teams and Healthwatch Stoke for feedback about the service. Healthwatch is an independent national champion, making sure that those running health and social care services, and the government, put people at the heart of care. We used the feedback received to help create a plan for the inspection. We also used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection we visited one person in their home to gain their feedback about the care they received. We also spoke with the provider, registered manager, the deputy manager and the estates manager. We reviewed the care records of two people supported by the service. In addition, we looked at service records including staff recruitment, supervision and training records, policies and procedures, complaints and compliments records, audits of quality and safety, fire safety and environmental health records.
After the inspection, we contacted four community healthcare professionals for their views about the service. We also contacted a local fire officer who was involved with the service, to discuss fire safety arrangements.
Updated
15 May 2019
About the service: Bagnall Heights Domiciliary Service provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in a retirement complex. The service was supporting 11 people at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People using the service and their relatives were very happy with the support provided by Bagnall Heights Domiciliary Service.
People told us staff visited them when they should and provided them with safe care. The provider followed safe processes when recruiting staff and staff understood their responsibilities if they witnessed or suspected abuse. The service managed people’s risks appropriately and managed people’s medicines in a safe way. A minor improvement was needed to medicines documentation and the registered manager made the necessary improvements during the inspection. Staff protected people from the risks associated with poor infection control.
Staff supported people in a way which met their needs. People felt staff had the knowledge and skills to support them well. Staff were happy with the induction they received when they joined the service. They completed the provider’s required training, which was updated regularly. Staff completed mental capacity assessments in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consulted people’s relatives when people were unable to make decisions about their care. Staff supported people to meet their nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs and referred people to community professionals when they needed extra support.
People liked the staff who supported them and told us staff were caring and respectful. Staff considered people’s diversity and people received any support they needed with their communication needs. Staff respected people’s right to privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be independent when it was safe to do so. People told us staff discussed their care needs with them and they were involved in decisions about their care. The provider ensured information was available about local advocacy services.
Staff provided people with care that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff created individualised care plans and risk assessments, which they updated when people’s needs or risks changed. People were supported by a familiar staff who knew them and how they liked to be supported. Staff offered people choices and encouraged them to make decisions about their support. No formal complaints had been received by the service. We saw evidence that the registered manager dealt with minor concerns appropriately.
People and their relatives were happy with how the service was being managed. We found evidence the service was providing people with person centred, high quality care. Staff liked working at the service and told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and deputy manager. The service sought regular feedback from people about the care provided. People expressed a high level of satisfaction with the support they received. The registered manager and deputy manager completed regular checks of many aspects of the service, including medicines, concerns, accidents and care documentation. The checks completed were effective in ensuring the service maintained appropriate levels of quality and safety.
Rating at last inspection: This was our first inspection of the service.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection.
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