You are here

Archived: Jays Homecare Limited Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 December 2014

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Jays Homecare Limited is a home care agency providing personal care to people living in their own home. The service supports more than 300 people who live in the London Boroughs of Enfield and Brent.

We inspected Jays Homecare Limited on 4 August 2014. The inspection was announced, we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice. During our last inspection on 12 August 2013 the provider was not in breach of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 we inspected.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. The registered manager was not present during our inspection on 4 August 2014, we were assisted by two care co-ordinators during this inspection.

Most people told us that they were extremely satisfied with the care they received. They told us that care workers were usually on time for their visits and if they were late would contact them immediately. They told us that they felt “safe” and care workers were “caring and understanding”. They also told us that care workers “are experienced and know their job well.”

Recruitment checks were carried out to protect people from the risks of employing unsuitable staff. Staff demonstrated good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and gave practice examples in how they would support a person who lacked capacity.

Staff were up to date with their mandatory training. Regular unannounced spot-checks were carried out on care workers to evaluate their care practices. An out of hours on call system ensured that management support and advice was available for care workers 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

People received safe care and care workers had detailed risk management plans to follow to help to ensure people were protected from injury and harm.

People’s health and care needs were assessed and care plans were put in place to help staff to deliver the care people needed and to keep them safe. However, care plans were of different standard across the two boroughs. Care plans for people who used the service in one area were basic and not always person centred compared with the other area.

All care workers we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people’s care needs, likes and dislikes, preferences and routines. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Care was designed to be flexible. People who used the service and care workers told us the service accommodated last-minute changes and responded to their requests.

Care workers and care co-ordinators told us that the registered manager provided strong leadership and people using the service, their relatives and care workers we spoke with told us that the agency promoted a high standard of care.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 December 2014

The service was safe. During our visit we saw, and people told us, that they felt safe using the service. There were robust safeguarding procedures that staff were trained to use and understood.

The manager and staff had access to systems that enabled them to learn from any previous incidents of poor care. This reduced the risks to people and helped service improvement.

There were Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policies and procedures in place and staff had received training.

Staff rotas took people’s needs into account when deciding required staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience. Appropriate recruitment checks were undertaken. 

Effective

Good

Updated 16 December 2014

The service was effective. Before staff began work they completed five days induction training and additional shadowing opportunities. Regular unannounced spot checks carried out by senior carers and field supervisors ensured that working practices were evaluated.

Care plans for people using the service in Enfield contained more detailed information and were person centred.

A robust matching process ensured that people using the service received support from staff with the relevant experience, skill, training and understanding to meet their needs.

The out of hours on call system ensured that management support was available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for people who used the service and staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 December 2014

The service was caring. People felt valued, respected and well cared for by care workers. People who used the service and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People who used the service told us that they were treated with respect and care workers were caring.  Comments people made included “I can say unequivocally that care workers are caring and they have built an excellent rapport.”

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 December 2014

The service was responsive. People told us that they were regularly contacted or visited by office based staff to see if they were happy with the service they were receiving, the staff delivering it and if they wished any changes to be made. Care plans were based on individual needs, regularly reviewed and updated, and enabled staff to meet people’s needs.

People and their relatives confirmed that any concerns raised were discussed and addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 December 2014

The service was well-led. People who used the service, their relatives and staff told us that there was an open and caring culture.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided.

Care workers and care co-ordinators were kept informed about good practice so they knew how to deliver care to a high standard.