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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Decisions about care and treatment were made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level.

People told us they spoke to senior carers and management during routine visits and could contact the office at any time, and any concern was dealt with immediately. We were told that if a message was sent via the carer it was always responded to and acted upon very quickly. People told us they were asked about their experiences of the care they received. We saw evidence of the annual questionnaire sent to every person receiving care and their relatives. We saw that where these were returned, there was a high satisfaction level.

We saw evidence of monitoring and audit files. We saw how the results of recent audits of the Medical Administration Records [MAR] sheets and communication books was disseminated to the staff, with instructions to staff on areas of improvement, a member of staff showed us how they had implemented these and explained the difference in recording in the communications book, following on from the audit. We saw evidence that the communications books and MAR sheets were correctly used, information clearly written and signed by the responsible carer, with a weekly sheet signed by the person receiving care or their relative.

People told us they knew how to complain, but “I have no reason to do so”. There were no complaints recorded for 2013. We were told that anything they were not happy with would be acted upon very quickly and not allowed to escalate.

We saw evidence that the care plans were reviewed annually and also ongoing where required. People told us they were fully involved in the review of their care plan with themselves, the manager, senior care staff, and relatives.

We saw evidence of the comprehensive review of Policy and Procedure files, completed July 2013. We were told that every member of staff had access to these files and had one to one time with the senior carer to ensure they had read and understood them. We observed that staff carried out the procedures efficiently and correctly. This meant that staff were supported and able to deliver care in a safe and correct manner.

We saw that Best Practice Guidelines were in the process of a full review, due to be completed in 2014. We saw evidence of business audits completed September 2013, with further audits in place for 2014 this ensured the business was robust. We saw evidence of staff training carried out in 2013 and the training plan for the first six months of 2014.

Staff told us they were very happy in their work, they felt they provided the best possible care and the management were very thoughtful of everyone, including staff. The community matron we spoke to told us the agency was their first choice where complex care needs were identified, or where the "extra mile" was required. They found that communication was exceptionally good between themselves and the agency.

We found that Quality Assurance audits were in place and effective, we saw evidence of dissemination to staff and that required actions were implemented and monitored. This ensured the standards of care were upheld and improvements made when required.