Background to this inspection
Updated
28 March 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection team consisted of one inspector, one assistant inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The Expert by Experience had experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides personal care to adults with a range of support needs, including people living with dementia and physical disability.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service short notice of the inspection because we wanted to visit people in their homes and we needed support from the registered manager to arrange this.
Inspection site visit activity started on 4 March 2019 and ended on 5 March 2019.
On the 4 March 2019 we visited three people in their homes to ask their opinions about the care they received and look at their care records. We also attempted contact over the telephone with twelve people who used the service and successfully spoke with five people and four relatives.
On the 5 March 2019 we visited the office location to see the registered manager, and review care records and policies and procedures relating to the service. We also spoke with two senior support workers and three support workers who visited the office to speak with us.
What we did:
We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from other sources. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered manager. We also spoke with the local authority commissioners, health professionals and Healthwatch (Sheffield). Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.
Updated
28 March 2019
About the service:
Home Alternative Limited provides personal care and support to people who live in their own homes. The service supports older people and those living with dementia. This service was formally known as Millennium House. People who used the service all knew it and referred to the service as Home Alternative Limited.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the regulated activity of ‘personal care’ being provided to people who use the service. However, we do take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 37 people.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service had improved since the last inspection. People’s care plans were more detailed, so staff had clear guidance on how to support people who use the service and the registered manager was submitting notifications to the CQC when required so we were aware of any incidents, so we could take action where appropriate to keep people safe.
People supported told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff understood their role and responsibility to keep people safe from harm.
People’s care records contained guidance for staff about how to support people safely and minimise risks to people.
Recruitment processes were robust and thorough checks were completed before staff started working at the service. Staff supported people safely with their medicines.
There were enough staff employed to ensure people received consistent and timely care. People told us they knew which staff would be visiting them, staff arrived at their agreed times and stayed and provided support for the agreed length of time.
People were supported 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.
People supported spoke very positively about the staff who supported them and the office team including the registered manager. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and were kind and caring.
Staff had received training and supervision to ensure staff had the knowledge to provide people with appropriate care.
People received personalised support from staff who knew them well. Staff had built positive relationships with the people they cared for and supported. Staff supported people to retain their independence and to remain involved in planning and reviewing their care. This helped to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s preferences.
Staff worked closely with a range of community healthcare professionals to promote good outcomes for people. Feedback from healthcare professionals involved with the service was very positive.
The service was consistently well-led. People felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager or provider and were confident they would be addressed. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.
The registered manager and senior staff coordinated a wide range of quality checks and audits of the service to make sure the care and support provided was of high quality. People’s feedback was regularly sought, so they could contribute to ongoing improvements within the service. This supported the continuous improvement of the service.
The service met the characteristics for a rating of "good" in all the key questions we inspected. Therefore, our overall rating for the service after this inspection was "good".
More information is in the full report:
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated requires improvement (published 4 March 2018).
Why we inspected:
All services rated "requires improvement" are re-inspected within one year of our prior inspection report being published. This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.