You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 February 2016

This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that someone would be available at the time of our inspection.

Ipswich (Papworth Trust) is a small domiciliary care service providing personal care and support for people aged 18 upwards living in their own homes. When we inspected on 17 November 2015, there were eight people who received a service from the agency.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

A transparent and open culture within the service existed. This encouraged creative and innovative thinking in relation to people’s safety and managing risk. Established procedures and processes ensured the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised but also ensured people’s rights to choice and freedom.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the care provided. They told us their support workers were extremely kind and attentive and they trusted them to come into their homes. They explained how they received safe and effective care by, support workers who knew them well and encouraged them to be as independent as possible and to achieve their goals and aspirations.

Robust systems were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Support workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe and actions were taken when they were concerned about people’s safety.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were appropriate arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

There were sufficient numbers of support workers who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support to people in the way they preferred. People were treated with kindness by the support workers. We observed support workers respect people’s privacy and dignity and interact with them in a caring and compassionate manner.

People and or their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support arrangements. As a result people received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. Support workers listened to people and acted on what they said.

People told us that they were supported by a consistent team of skilled support workers who they had developed good relationships with. People and relatives valued the interactions they had with the service’s management team and support workers.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely. Where support workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were effective systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. The service had a quality assurance system with identified shortfalls addressed promptly; this helped the service to continually improve.

The manager demonstrated how they had sustained continual development and improvement at the service. They were clear about their expectations relating to how the service should be provided and led by example. Creative ways to provide a personalised service had achieved effective results through working closely with other organisations.

There was an empowering and supportive culture within the service. Support workers were highly motivated and committed to providing a high standard of care to people. They understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and high quality care to the people who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Outstanding

Updated 17 February 2016

The service was extremely safe.

Systems were in place to enable creative and innovative thinking in relation to people’s safety and managing risk.

People and their relatives trusted their support workers and felt safe when they came into their home to provide care and support. There were enough skilled and competent support workers to ensure people received a reliable and consistent service.

Support workers were knowledgeable about how to recognise abuse or potential abuse and how to respond and report these concerns appropriately.

People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 February 2016

The service was effective.

Support workers had the knowledge and skills they needed to effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities to meet

people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

People were asked for their consent before any care and support was provided.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 February 2016

The service was caring.

People who used the service had developed positive, caring relationships with the support workers.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and these were respected.

People’s independence, privacy and dignity was promoted and respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 February 2016

The responsiveness of the service was good.

The service was flexible and responded quickly to people’s changing needs or wishes.

People received care that was based on their individual needs and preferences. They were involved in all aspects of their care and were enabled to live their lives the way they wished to.

People’s views and opinions were actively sought and listened to. People knew how to complain and share their experiences. There was a complaints system in place to show that concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 February 2016

The leadership and the management of the service was good.

The management team promoted the highest standards of care and support for people; delivered by a passionate and committed staff team.

The service worked effectively in partnership with other organisations to improve the lives of people they cared and supported.

There was a significant emphasis on driving continual improvement and best practice which benefited people, their relatives and staff. The service had an effective quality assurance system where identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.