Archived: Home Help Apuldram

This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with 13 people using the service and four relatives. We also spoke with seven staff, and the manager. During this inspection we looked at outcomes relating to consent, people’s care and welfare and safeguarding from abuse. We also looked at staffing levels and the agency's quality assurance processes. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is it safe?

We found that not all aspects of the service were safe. People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider ensured staff had completed training in the safeguarding of adults. Staff were aware of what constituted abuse and how to report it.

People told us they felt safe with staff. Arrangements were in place to ensure people continued to receive care in the event of an emergency or if the weather impacted on the service. Staff had access to advice and guidance from management if they needed it.

Risk assessments were in place, however these were not all current and some care plans lacked key information or were inconsistent. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring people’s care and treatment is delivered safely.

Is it effective?

People we spoke with said their needs were met and were complimentary about the staff providing their care. They told us they were confident staff had the skills they needed to support them effectively.

Staff we spoke with knew people’s needs and how to support them. Some parts of care plans contained detailed instructions, for example, on how people preferred their personal care to be carried out. However, other parts of care plans were out of date. Staff had completed training to support them to carry out their role.

Is it caring?

People told us staff were “wonderful”, “brilliant” and “very caring”. Records showed staff stayed longer with people who needed extra care, for example, if they were unwell. Arrangements were in place to ensure staff had access to advice if they were concerned about a person they were providing care to.

People were cared for by staff who understood their human rights and consent was gained by staff before providing care.

Is it responsive?

People told us their concerns or comments were acted on by the management and their responses met with their approval. A team leader was on-call at all times to ensure staff who were delayed or not able to attend a call could be provided with cover. The service had sufficient staff to cover all the calls and where possible, always informed the person receiving care if their regular care worker was not going to attend. People told us they had fairly consistent staff attending to their needs and were informed of changes or delays, which did not happen often.

Is it well-led?

Systems were in place to audit people’s care plans and other records. However, these were not always effective and inconsistencies and omissions had not been identified or addressed. Where issues had been identified it was not evident what action had been taken.

Staff supervision was irregular and where training needs had been identified as part of a supervision these had not always been met. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to assessing and monitoring the quality of the service they provide.

People and their relatives were all complimentary about the service that they received from the agency. One person told us, " They’ve been very helpful. At first they were a godsend, they’re always there – they’re perfectly good to me". A relative told us," When they look after my daughter, often all I hear is laughter”.

We found that people had care that met their needs and that they were involved in the planning of this care. We also found that people were treated with respect by care workers.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

We found that the service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service that they were providing.