We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cherish Homecare Services 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 Cherish Homecare Services, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service
People told us they were settled and happy with the service provided by Cherish Homecare Services. They told they received their medicines on time and staff supported them when needed.
People told us that staff had the skills and approach needed to help ensure they were receiving the right care. Although most staff had appropriate base line qualifications, there had been a lack of training updates in some key areas. Support around staff training needed further development. We made a recommendation.
The service was staffed appropriately and consistently, and most staff had been employed for several years in care. They were experienced; this helped to develop positive relationships with people they supported.
Arrangements were in place for checking people's home environment to help ensure it was safe and any obvious hazards were assessed, and plans put in place to reduce the risk.
People told us that they felt safe when being supported and no-one raised any concerns about their care; one person commented, “Indeed I am always safe and comfortable with the care workers; they know what I am like, they have built a relationship with me.”
There were a series of quality assurance processes and audits carried out internally by the registered manager on behalf of the provider. These were generally effective in monitoring the quality of the service. Feedback was gathered from the people being supported and their relatives.
The formal assessment and planning of people’s care in care records had been reviewed and updated. Records reviewed contained very good detail of people’s care needs and evidenced their involvement in the planning of their care.
The staff we spoke with described how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported.
People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests when required; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was Good (published 23/05/2017).
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
There was a registered manager 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.
The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. The service had a safeguarding and whistleblowing policy in place and this told staff what action to take if they had any concerns.
We found the care and support records of people who used the service were comprehensive, well organised and easy to follow and included a range of risk assessments to keep people safe from harm.
We found there were robust recruitment procedures in place and required checks were undertaken before staff began to work for the service.
We looked at how the service managed people’s medicines and found that suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that people who used the service were safe. We looked at the medicines administration record (MAR) charts for people when we visited them in their own homes and found that these had all been completed correctly and were up to date.
There was an appropriate up to date accident and incident policy and procedure in place.
People who used the service told us they felt that staff had the right skills and training to do their job. New staff were given an employee handbook at the start of their employment which identified the principles and values underpinning the service.
Staff were given a copy of the organisation’s policies and procedures which were available electronically or in paper format and staff knowledge of these policies and procedures was tested out at supervision meetings and as part of the process of induction.
Staff told us they felt they had received sufficient training to undertake their role competently. Records showed staff had completed training in a range of areas, including dementia, safeguarding, first aid, medicines, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, infection control and health and safety.
Staff received supervision and appraisal from their manager and a record was maintained of all staff supervisions that had taken place.
Before any care and support was given consent was obtained from the person who used the service or their representative.
People who used the service and their relatives told us that staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect.
Support planning documentation e enabled staff to capture information to ensure people from different cultural groups received the appropriate help and support they needed to lead fulfilling lives and meet their individual and cultural needs.
People who used the service had a care plan that was personal to them with copies held at both the person’s own home and in the office premises. The structure of the care plan was clear and information was easy to access. Regular reviews of care needs were undertaken by the manager of the service.
The service subsequently wrote to us detailing what action they had taken to address these concerns and provided evidence to demonstrate what improvements had been made. We looked at the action plan provided by the service together with an updated supervision policy and procedures which set out the purpose and frequency of individual supervision and annual appraisals. We also looked at eight completed supervision documents that had recently been undertaken by the service. Supervisions enabled managers to assess the development needs of their support staff and to address training and personal needs. These had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
We found that the service was now meeting the development needs of its staff by the introduction of an effective supervision and appraisal system.
At the time of our inspection there were 10 people who used the service. As part of the inspection we spoke to five people who used the service, four relatives and friends and five members of staff.
Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by an inspector, who addressed our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they had no concerns about their personal safety.
We found safeguarding procedures were robust and staff demonstrated they understood how to safeguard people they supported.
People told us that they felt their privacy and dignity was respected by staff. One relative told us; 'My X is definitely safe with them. The service was recommended to me and they are very good with my X.'
We found people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.
Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified were people are protected.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them. People said that their care plans reflected their current needs
.
We found that personal care plans were regularly reviewed to meet changing needs.
We found the service did not have appropriate arrangements in place to ensure staff received appropriate professional development through regular supervision and appraisals.
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to professional development of staff through the implementation of supervision and appraisals.
Is the service caring?
People who used the service and relatives told us they or their loved ones were supported by kind and dedicated staff. Comments included; 'Care they give is great.' 'On the whole I'm very happy with the service.' 'From what I've seen the girls are very nice and friendly. X is very happy which makes me very content.' 'I personally think it runs very well. The manager has done a lot more than you would expect.' 'Have no complaints about them at all.'
When speaking with staff it was clear that they knew the needs of each person they supported.
We found care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes and consent.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. There were no recorded complaints against the service at the time of our visit.
Is the service well-led?
The service had quality assurance systems to ensure high standards of care were maintained. Problems and concerns were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they felt supported by the service and were clear about their roles and responsibilities.