We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead 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, you can give feedback on this service.
Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides assistance with personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection 46 people were receiving support with personal care needs. 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.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People benefitted from a service which was extremely well-led. People were truly at the heart of everything the service did. People’s views were valued and responded to and were used to shape the service provided. The provider’s ethos of providing a truly caring and compassionate service had been embraced by the whole staff team. Staff were highly motivated and proud of the service. Without exception, people and their relatives praised the service they received and said they would recommend the agency to others. The provider used imaginative approaches to make sure staff training was meaningful and led to positive changes in the care people received. The provider worked with other professionals and organisations to promote positive outcomes for people.
People were supported by staff who were exceptionally caring. Many people told us staff often went over and above their job roles which demonstrated their kindness and consideration for the people they supported.
There was a strong emphasis on ensuring people received care and support which met their needs and preferences. The provider matched staff to people to help them build trusting relationships and share hobbies and interests. The provider and staff worked to reduce loneliness for people and ensured people had access to a range of social opportunities. People felt confident and comfortable to discuss any concerns with staff.
People felt safe with the staff who supported them. Risks to people were monitored and procedures were in place to help keep people safe. People were supported by adequate numbers of staff who were safe to work with them. The provider’s systems protected people from the risk of abuse. People were protected from the risks associated with the control and spread of infection.
People were supported by staff who were well trained and competent in their role. People were assessed before they used the service to ensure their needs and preferences could be met. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people's rights were understood and protected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's health care and nutritional needs were monitored and understood by staff.
Rating at last inspection
The service was rated outstanding at our last inspection (report published June 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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Home Instead Senior Care is registered to provide personal care and support to people of all ages living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 41 people with a range of personal care and support needs. The service also provided companionship and support to a number of other people.
The inspection of this service took place on 22 and 23 February 2017 and was announced.
There was a registered manager in post and they were present at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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.
People received a service that was safe and staff clearly understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. Risks in relation to providing safe support were assessed, documented and well managed.
There were sufficient staff to support people who used the service. The registered manager matched people to the staff who supported them to ensure compatibility and consistency. This meant that people got to know the staff who supported them and trusted them to meet their needs safely and in ways that they preferred. Staff could offer flexible and responsive support that met people’s changing needs in order to ensure their on-going safety and wellbeing. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices meaning that only people suitable to work in the role were appointed.
People who required support to take their medicines were protected by safe systems in place for administering, storing and recording medicines. Training was in place to enable staff to safely support people when required.
People were supported by staff who were well trained and equipped with the knowledge and skills to meet their assessed needs. Training was innovative and bespoke to meet people’s individual needs. The providers and the registered manager were creative in sharing ideas and good practice with others. Staff supported family members by sharing good practice and working alongside them to ensure people’s needs were met. People’s rights and choices were respected and promoted. Staff offered individualised support and people were actively involved in decision making.
People's communication needs were known by staff and different communication methods were used to ensure people were involved in decisions about their care.
People were supported, as required, to enjoy a varied and nutritious diet that met their individual dietary needs. Staff worked with health and social care professionals to promote and maintain people’s good health. Where there were concerns over people's health, specialist input was sought from a range of health professionals.
People were supported by staff who were very caring, kind and compassionate. Staff provided support ‘above and beyond’ their remit and people valued this. People were supported to remain as independent as they were able whilst receiving support and care. Staff also worked closely with family members and promoted relationships with people who were important to people who used the service. This improved their quality of life.
People told us that staff treated them with the upmost dignity and respect.
People were listened to and received a responsive service that met their assessed needs. Comprehensive assessments of need and a thorough matching process meant that staff could be selected to work with a person based on shared interests and values. People who used the service, and their families, were consulted in this process. People received the care and support they required at times that had been agreed with them. They told us that any changes were communicated and staff were flexible if people wished to reschedule their visits. People's changing health and wellbeing needs were responded to. People's individual preferences were taken into account and used to tailor people's care to meet their needs. Care records were detailed and accurately reflected people’s needs.
People told us they were satisfied with the service that they received. People were confident that, should they need to make a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns would be acted upon. We saw how complaints were effectively managed. Staff were aware of the complaints procedure and were confident that any complaints would be taken seriously. The registered manager learnt from incidents, accidents and complaints and made changes to improve the service, if possible, as a result.
People who used the service told us that the service was very well run. People considered that the service’s high standards were reflected throughout and that as a result the quality of care provided was very high.
There were comprehensive systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Audits and quality assurance systems reflected positively on the quality of the service provided. Feedback from people, who worked with the service and from relatives and visitors, reflected the service was currently very well run.
Staff felt supported by the registered manager and provider, and felt a sense of pride about working for the organisation and in its value’s. Staff felt involved and consulted. They all felt part of the organisation and considered their views and opinions were listened to and acted upon.
The providers were committed to continual improvement and development. They were passionate about raising the profile of the service and of the aging process in general. They were active on a number of projects and used community resources as well as local media to do this. The providers and the registered manager were innovative and creative in developing and delivering a service that was underpinned by strong values and reflective of current best practice.
The inspection was announced and took place on 4 August 2015. The provider had short notice that an inspection would take place. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people in their own homes and we needed to ensure that the manager would be available to assist us. At the last inspection in August 2013, we found the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed.
Home Instead Senior Care provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the agency were providing personal care for 37 people. The agency also provided companionship and support to a number of other people.
The agency did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The manager had recently been appointed and confirmed they would apply to be registered with us pending a successful probationary period. 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.
People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them and said staff were always respectful and spoke with them appropriately. Staff had a clear understanding of how to protect people from abuse and harm and knew how to report any alleged abuse or poor practice. The provider used safe recruitment processes to ensure only appropriate staff were employed to work with people in their own homes.
People were supported by staff that knew them well and were equipped with the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. Staff received training and on-going support to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. They understood how to promote people’s rights, choices and independence.
People shared positive experiences about the care and support they received. They told us that staff were kind and caring and responsive to their needs and preferences. People were introduced to new carers and were able to choose the times of their visits. People’s care was planned and reviewed with them to ensure they received care which met their needs.
People had no concerns about the care and support they or their family member received, but knew they could raise issues directly with the provider.
Care plans detailed people’s needs and preferences. People told us there was a minimum of an hour visit which meant staff had time to support people without rushing them and this helped to support their independence and maintain their safety. Staff promoted people’s dignity, privacy and independence.
People found their care staff and the management team approachable and spoke positively about the culture of the service. The management team were committed to providing a high quality service to people. A range of checks were carried out to ensure that good standards of care were maintained. Feedback from people was sought on a regular basis to gain people’s views and improve the service.
People told us that they felt safe. If they had concerns, they would speak with a relative or someone from the agency. One person said, 'I would contact the office if I had any concerns. However there has been no need. We are very pleased with this service.'
We saw the agency had effective systems to protect people and report allegations of abuse. Staff recruitment systems made sure anyone who worked for Home Instead Senior Care were screened fit to have contact with vulnerable people.
The service told us how they were proud of the range of training and development opportunities offered to staff, family members and friends of people using the service. This helped provide consistency in care and made sure staff they kept up-to-date with current practice.
We found that the provider was continually improving their systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of service they provided. We saw they demonstrated how they learned from feedback to show the service was run for the benefit of the people using it.