Archived: Eyam Domiciliary Service

A summary of what we found is set out below.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and trusted the people who provided their care. We found there were effective safeguarding procedures in place and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. The service had achieved a bronze dignity and respect award and were planning to apply for a silver one. This is a scheme run by the local authority which assesses how well the service meets a range of dignity and respect requirements. We spoke with a social care professional who worked closely with the service who told us the provider responded positively to suggestions for improvement.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff identified potential risks and learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This meant risks to people were reduced and helped the service to improve. Staff knew about plans for managing risks and gave us examples of when they had followed them. We found the provider ensured people had access to choice and were helped to retain their independence. The provider took peoples' needs and preferences into account when planning staff rotas to provide continuity of care and ensure that people's needs were always met.

Is the service effective?

Peoples' needs were thoroughly assessed and care plans were person centred and reviewed by care staff every four months. We saw examples of relatives being involved in reviewing people's care and that the provider obtained specialist advice when needed to ensure peoples' needs were fully met.

Staff told us they felt supported to provide people's care.They also said the manager encouraged them to study for qualifications in health and social care to ensure they fully understood how to give people good quality care.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with two people who were supported by the service and the relatives of three others. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them.

Feedback from people was positive, for example one person's relative said, 'Staff always communicated what they were about to do and checked they were comfortable with that even though they are not able to respond because of their condition'. Another relative told us when they had contacted the service to request a change to a visit time and staff had, 'Bent over backwards to accommodate their request'.

Another relative told us 'it was important to have regular carers who can learn how to deal with problems'. They said the 'Continuity of care has improved and it is understandable if this was difficult to achieve during spells of bad weather'.

The manager and staff told us the quality of service provided to people was important them and they wanted to do their best for people. The provider had developed a survey to gather the views of people who used the service and the results had been discussed with staff. A number of actions had been taken as a result. There were plans to develop the questions in the survey and the manager was also surveying the views of staff on how services could be improved. People's preferences, interests, goal sand the things that were important to them had been recorded and taken into account when the provider planned their care.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with told us they found the manager and office staff approachable. They said they rang the office if they had any concerns and things were dealt with effectively and promptly. Although a satisfaction survey had showed some people were not aware of the complaints procedure, people we spoke with said they were confident any concerns they raised would be dealt with. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care which was well co-ordinated.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us the manager was a strong 'role model' who set high professional standards. The manager monitored the quality of service by visiting and talking to people and by observing care being provided. A quality assurance system was in place and records showed that any problems identified were addressed promptly. This helped to ensure the quality of the service continuously improved. Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff also demonstrated a good understanding of policies in place at the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.

We found care was planned and delivered effectively by the provider and that appropriate consent was obtained for their care. People's needs were assessed and staff had access to detailed care plans and risk assessments to enable them to deliver safe and appropriate care.

We found that recruitment procedures were robust and that staff received relevant training and were well supported by the manager.

Records were up to date and stored securely at the service and policies and procedures were in place to ensure people received appropriate care. We saw records had been updated and reviewed regularly to ensure they were relevant and fit for purpose.