You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 17 November 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 5 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We met with three people who used the service to gain their views and experiences. Two people did not verbally communicate their views with us so we observed their reactions and body language to staff engagement and interaction. One person told us their needs were met and staff treated them well. They said, “They (staff) are very nice and listen to me. I am very happy. They (staff) help me to get out and about and do things by myself.”

We spoke with three relatives on behalf of the people who used the service. They confirmed they were satisfied with the care, treatment and support provided and were actively involved in the ongoing development of these care arrangements.

We looked at four people’s care records which provided information for staff on how to meet people’s individual health and care needs. We saw that people’s choices and preferences were reflected in the care records and written in a way that promoted their independence.

The care records showed that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned in line with their individual care plan.

We saw the provider’s policies and procedures, which included safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We saw that the safeguarding policy included information of the local procedures for reporting abuse. This included reporting to the local authority safeguarding team, who were responsible for investigating concerns of abuse.

We looked at staff records and spoke with three members of staff who told us they were being appropriately supervised and supported. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the people they supported and how to meet their needs.

We saw that the provider had systems and procedures in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of the service provided.