28 April and 1, 8 May 2014
During a routine inspection
This is a summary of what we found-
Is the service safe?
There were safeguarding procedures in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Risk assessments were in place and addressed areas of specific risk to people who used the service. The staff recruitment practice was thorough.
Is the service effective?
People's needs had been fully assessed and detailed care plans were in place. There was evidence that people were involved in assessments of their needs and the planning of their care. There was also evidence that people's relatives and representatives had been involved in decisions about the care of the person who used the service. People's dietary needs were assessed and included in people's care plans. The care plans were regularly reviewed and updated as necessary.
Is the service caring?
People who used the service and their relatives said staff were 'kind', 'supportive' and 'caring'. One person said "the staff are wonderful', I couldn't fault them'. Another person said there was 'one or two hiccups' when they first started using the service, but the care they now received was 'fantastic. A relative speaking on behalf of a person who used the service said 'the carers, especially the senior carers are excellent'.
Is the service responsive?
Systems were in place to investigate complaints and concerns. People said they knew how to complain if they were unhappy with the service. We looked at records of complaints and saw that complaints were responded to in line with the providers own complaints procedure; we saw that one complaint was in the process of investigation with the local authority safeguarding team.
Is the service well-led?
We found the agency to be well managed, as there were appropriate quality assurance systems in place that included a system of staff supervision to ensure the effective running of the service. However the provider may wish to note, some of the people we spoke with told us of instances of missed or late calls and staff shortages. This meant the provider had not always effectively managed unexpected changes in the service, for example to cover sickness, vacancies, absences and emergencies.