You are here

Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older people and younger disabled adults. People living with mental health conditions; learning disabilities, sensory and or physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were 43 people using the service, 20 of those people received support with the regulated activity of ‘personal care.’

CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 was last inspected in December 2016, the rating awarded was required improvement overall.

People and their relatives told us they felt they received a safe service. They said they were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and who were trained. The service they received was responsive and met their needs and there was continuity in the staff that supported them. People valued this as it enabled them to build relationships and develop trust. They told us they felt the service was well managed and they would recommend it to others.

The staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals in order they could carry out the role to the expected standard. They received support from a team of three senior staff, who they reported were accessible, knowledgeable and effective.

People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving care, a care plan and risk assessments were documented to ensure that any risks were minimised and care was appropriate. The care was regularly reviewed and where required, changes were made.

Where people required assistance with medicines this was provided. However, we found the senior staff were not aware of some aspects of best practice. For example, the information from prescriptions was not always transcribed with sufficient detail onto the Medication Administration Record (MAR). Body maps were not always used to demonstrate where creams should be applied. We discussed this with the registered manager, they took immediate action to rectify the situation and were going to discuss with the franchisor how their training needed to be updated.

The service had safe recruitment systems in place to ensure as far as possible only suitable staff were employed to work with people.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted 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.

Training was provided on equality and diversity and the registered manager and senior staff told us they would be happy to provide care to anyone with protected characteristics. We found care to be person centre and people were treated equally by the provider. Where appropriate people’s interests and hobbies were supported. Community involvement played a large part of the service provided. The registered manager worked hard to encourage community involvement for the people they cared for.

A quality audit and feedback from people and staff highlighted areas the service could improve in. Where appropriate action was taken to address issues and adjust the service being provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was safe.

People�s safety and well-being had been considered by the service and steps had been taken to ensure that any risk of harm had been assessed.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risks of abuse or neglect.

Comprehensive recruitment checks protected people from the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was effective.

People�s health was monitored and when necessary external professionals were contacted to provide support to people on maintaining good health.

Care was provided in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This ensured people�s rights were upheld.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a caring nature and who were knowledgeable about people�s needs and the care required.

The service was working towards compliance with the Accessible Information Standards. Advice and resources to assist people with communication were in place.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans and risk assessments were up to date and accurate. This assisted staff to provide appropriate care.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. When people had raised concerns these were dealt with quickly and appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and took appropriate action to improve the standards when necessary.

The registered manager and senior staff provided effective leadership and management. This was valued by the staff and people using the service.