You are here

Community Support Service (Dom Care) Good

We are carrying out checks at Community Support Service (Dom Care). We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the Community Support Service (Domiciliary Care) on 18 and 19 April 2016. We made telephone calls to people who used the service and members of staff on 21 April 2016.

Community Support Service (Domiciliary Care) is a community based service providing care and support to people living in their own homes and in three supported living settings. At the time of our inspection, there were eleven people using the service. Eight People lived in three different houses; some houses had been converted into flats where they received around the clock support from staff, and three people lived in their own homes and were supported for no less than two hours every week.

The service has two registered managers 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.

People were safe using this service. There were risk assessments in place that gave staff guidance on how risks to people could be minimised and how to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm.

People’s care needs had been assessed, and care plans put into place. These care plans were personalised to each individual and took into consideration people’s preferences and choices. Staff supported people to attend health care visits such as GP appointments and hospital visits when required.

Staff were caring and respectful of the people they supported. They had built positive relationships with people and were clearly knowledgeable about people’s needs.

The provider had an effective recruitment processes in place and there were sufficient numbers of staff to safely support people. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities within the service and were trained in meeting people’s needs. They received supervision and support, and gained people’s consent before they provided care or support.

The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service. The provider also had effective quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that they were meeting the required standards of care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was safe.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm.

There were robust recruitment systems in place There was sufficient staff to safely meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported to manage their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was effective.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met and people’s consent was sought before any care or support was provided.

People were supported by staff that had been trained to meet their individual needs.

People had access to other health and social care services when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff that were kind, caring and supportive.

Staff understood people’s individual needs and they respected their choices.

Staff respected and protected people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs had been assessed and appropriate care plans developed to meet their needs.

People were supported to follow their interests and hobbies.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was well-led.

There were two registered managers in post. They were approachable and supportive to people.

Quality monitoring audits were completed regularly to drive continual improvements.

People who used the service and their relatives were enabled to routinely share their experiences of the service and their comments were acted on.