You are here

Home Instead - Peterborough, Oundle & The Deepings Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 December 2017

This inspection took place between 14 and 16 November 2017 and was announced. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older people, people with a physical disability or sensory impairment, younger adults, people living with a mental health condition, dementia or sensory impairment.

At the time of our inspection there were 42 people using the service who lived in Peterborough, Oundle and the Deepings areas. The provider's head office is located on the outskirts of Peterborough.

Not everyone using Home Instead Senior Care - Peterborough, Oundle & The Deepings receives the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection on 8 December 2015 the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Staff knew what keeping people safe meant. They also knew how to report concerns and the organisations they could contact should they suspect or identify any risk to people's safety.

The registered manager had policies and procedures in place to respond to any accidents and incidents such medicines administration errors. These procedures were effective in driving improvements to help prevent any recurrences.

A robust recruitment process helped ensure that only staff who were deemed suitable due to their skills and suitable character were employed to work with people using the service.

Staff whose competence had been assessed to administer people's medicines did this in a safe way. Medicines were managed in line with current guidance.

Risks to people both in their home, and whilst out in the community had been assessed. These risks were then managed effectively to help ensure people continued to be as safe as they could possibly be. This was as well as any checks required on the equipment people used being completed to make sure it was safe to use, such as wheelchairs.

People continued to be cared for by staff who were supported, mentored, supervised and given the training and skills they needed to help each person live the life they wanted to. The support and care people received helped them to benefit by being enabled to remain as independent as possible.

People were effectively supported with their healthcare and nutritional needs. People were enabled access to healthcare support such as that from a GP in a prompt way.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were well looked after and cared for by staff who considered people's equality and any diverse needs. People rights, dignity and privacy was protected by staff.

People contributed to how the service was run, how the quality of care was maintained and how it was improved. This was by face to face meetings, observations of staff's care practises, quality assurance, audit and governance processes and staff's daily contact with people during the provision of their care. Any comments/concerns were acted upon swiftly and to the person's satisfaction.

The registered manager had created an inclusive atmosphere within the service and this had fostered an open and honest staff team culture. Staff were supported in a positive and

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 December 2017

The service remained Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 December 2017

The service remained good.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 December 2017

The service remained Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 December 2017

The service remained Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 December 2017

The service remained good.