Archived: Carewise Ltd

At the last inspection in March 2016, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. Staff received safeguarding training so they knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. Risk management plans were in place to protect and promote people's safety. The staffing arrangements were suitable to keep people safe. The staff recruitment practices ensured staff were suitable to work with people. Staff followed infection control procedures to reduce the risks of spreading infection or illness.

The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which came into force in August 2016. The AIS is a framework that makes it a legal requirement for all providers to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand information they are given.

Staff received induction training when they first started work at the service. On-going refresher training ensured staff were able to provide care and support for people following current practice. Staff supervision systems ensured that staff received regular one to one supervision and appraisal of their performance.

Staff supported people to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain a varied and balanced diet. Staff supported people to access health appointments when required, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care. People had their privacy, dignity and confidentiality maintained at all times.

People had their diverse needs assessed, they had positive relationships with staff and received care in line with best practice meeting their personal preferences. Staff consistently provided people with respectful and compassionate care.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the service. People, their relatives and other professionals told us that they had confidence in the manager's ability to provide consistently high quality managerial oversight and leadership.

Carewise is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people that require this to enable them to retain their independence and continue living at home. When we inspected the service provided care and support to around 30 people including, for example, older people with dementia care needs and some younger adults with learning disabilities. The number of service users fluctuates depending upon demand for the service. The service is predominantly provided to people living in and around Northampton.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported in their own homes by trained care staff that were able to meet people’s needs safely. People were also protected from the risks associated with the recruitment of care staff unsuited to the role by robust recruitment systems. There were sufficient numbers of care staff employed to meet people’s assessed needs.

People’s care plans reflected their needs and choices about how they preferred their care and support to be provided. Risk assessments were in place to reduce and manage the risks to people’s health and welfare.

People benefitted from receiving support from care staff that were caring, friendly, and responsive to people’s changing needs. Care staff were able to demonstrate that they understood what was required of them to provide people with the care they needed at home. People were treated with dignity and their right to make choices about how they preferred their care to be provided was respected. People had been kept informed in a timely way whenever care staff were unavoidably delayed, or when another member of care staff had to be substituted at short notice.

People’s views about the quality of their service were sought and acted upon. There were systems in place in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

People’s rights were protected. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary.

People benefitted from a service that was conscientiously and effectively managed so that people received their service in a timely and reliable way.

We found that people's preferences for the way they wanted their support to be provided had been taken into account and acted upon. We saw from records and from talking with staff that people had been enabled to make informed choices about their care and support. We saw that people with learning disabilities had been enabled to engage with the community and enjoy participating in activities. We found that people were provided with the agreed practical assistance, support, and day-to-day encouragement they needed to remain at home and retain their independence.

We found the agency to be well-managed and that people received reliable, safe and effective care.