You are here

Harcombe Valley Care Limited Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 15 January 2014
Date of Publication: 22 February 2014
Inspection Report published 22 February 2014 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 15 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service understood the care and treatment they received.

People told us that before the agency had started to provide care they had been visited by the manager and a senior carer, they had been fully involved in writing their care plans and felt confident that the right care was being given to them. The needs of their relatives had also been supported in the delivery of care. They also told us they felt confident in making any requests for a change of care delivery, and were happy to discuss this with a senior carer or contact the office. They told us that they knew they would “be listened to” People were given information about the care agency in the form of a booklet, which also contained contact details of other relevant agencies; people told us they found this very useful.

People told us that they had their dignity respected at all times, carers were observed to ensure privacy was maintained. People told us that the carers understood them and their family, one relative told us that the carers also “looked out for them as well” One person told us the highlight of their week was their “outdoor day” and this felt more like a member of their own family taking them out.

People told us that they never had a visit from someone they did not know, all new staff were introduced to them and came on several visits accompanied by a senior carer before they visited alone. Any changes to the weekly sheet were notified by the office. People told us that they felt secure with the care given and trusted the carers. They also preferred the local nature of the agency and the carers and liked the small number of people who actually gave them the care. The provider informed us that although they had twenty five carers they ensured each person receiving care had a small number of carers visiting them, ensuring continuity of care.

One relative told us they found the agency very quick to respond when they required a change to visits. They gave an example of how they had been unexpectedly held up owing to weather and the agency had put extra visits in as soon as contacted. Another person told us that if they required an extra visit all they had to do was phone the agency and a carer would be sent within a short time. We were told that if there were any concerns the management were very approachable and would respond quickly.

People told us that wherever possible the times they requested were accommodated, even when two carers were required. This enabled the person and their relatives to be able to plan their own day.

We saw evidence of training given to all staff ensuring they understood and followed good practice in respecting people, ensuring privacy and dignity. We saw how the carer was able to promote a person’s independence and assist them to complete tasks themselves. We saw evidence in the care plan of how extra care was provided during a time of poor health, but withdrawn safely as the person’s health improved again.

We were told that being a small agency the management were often out with the carers giving the care and in this way could see what was going on, talk to the people using the service and could solve any problems that might arise. This meant that people using the service felt that their care was monitored closely by people they knew and who had personal knowledge of them and their care needs.