You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Alina Homecare Stevenage Ltd. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 January 2017

This inspection was carried out on 20 December 2016 and on the 23 December 2016 we contacted people and staff to obtain feedback about their experience of using and working for the service. The inspection was announced. At the last inspection in January 2014 the service was found to be meeting the required standards.

Alina homecare Stevenage provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. They also provide support to people who live in two extra care schemes in Stevenage. There were 212 people being supported by the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service demonstrated they had systems and processes in place to keep people safe from harm. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to any allegations of abuse. Medicines were managed safely. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and these were recruited through a robust process which helped ensure staff were suited for the roles they performed.

Staff were inducted and received on-going training and support. Staff had individual supervisions, team meetings and regular contact with office staff to share good practice and discuss any concerns. People received care that was effective and met their needs. Consent was obtained, recorded and reviewed by staff who were aware of the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People, where required were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to help to keep them healthy. People’s day to day health needs were maintained and people were supported to attend appointments as required.

People received care that was both personalised and staff demonstrated they were kind, caring and compassionate. We saw that care plans were written in a way that showed people were involved in the development and review of their care pans. People’s choices were respected along with their dignity being maintained and promoted. People knew how to raise concerns and felt their feedback was listened to and acted upon.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor and improve the service to achieve a consistently high standard of care and support for everyone who used the service. There was a call monitoring system and spot checks were undertaken to help ensure visits were provided at the agreed times. Feedback from people indicated that visits were sometimes provided later than the expected time but this was being monitored and managed and people felt this had improved in recent months. This was being monitored at all times and time critical visits were prioritised to help ensure the service was consistently responsive to people’s needs.

The management team and staff were open, honest and inclusive. We saw evidence that many processes had been introduced to help ensure the service made continual improvements. There was a consistent staff team following a brief period of transition. This had contributed to an improvement in both the consistency and quality of care as people developed meaningful relationships and the staff team got to know people's individuals routines.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 January 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited via a robust recruitment process.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs at all times.

People’s medicines were managed safely and they received them in accordance with the prescriber’s instructions.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 January 2017

The service was effective.

People received effective care and support that was effective and met their assessed needs.

Staff received training and support relevant to their roles.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care. Staff were aware of MCA principles.

People were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain their health.

People were supported to access health care professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 January 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated in a kind, caring and compassionate way.

Staff knew about people’s individual choices, preferences and routines.

People’s privacy was respected and they were treated with dignity and respect.

People where possible were involved in the development and review of their care and support plans.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported to be involved in decisions about their care where possible and appropriate.

People were supported to participate in activities and attend events within the community.

There was a complaints process in place and people’s concerns were listened to and acted upon.

People were encouraged to give feedback about the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 January 2017

The service was well-led and managed.

The provider had systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service.

People, their relatives and staff felt the management of the service was consistently good and responsive.

The service demonstrated it was open, honest, transparent.and inclusive.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.