You are here

Archived: Salter's Hill Home Care & Support Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

This inspection took place on the 5 January 2017 and was announced.

Salter's Hill Home Care & Support is registered to provide personal care.

Salter's Hill Home Care & Support had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People were at risk of receiving care from unsuitable staff because robust recruitment procedures were not being applied.

We heard positive comments about the service such as “the service is one of the best and should be replicated”. One person told us they were “Happy with Salter’s Hill”. A member of staff told us people using the service were “well supported”.

People were enabled to live safely; risks to their safety were identified, assessed and appropriate action taken. People's medicines were safely managed.

People were satisfied with their support and the approach and effectiveness of staff. People's individual needs were known to staff who had achieved positive relationships with them. People were treated with kindness, their privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported to maintain their independence and engage in activities. People were involved in the planning and review of the support they received.

Staff received support to develop knowledge and skills for their role and were positive about their work with people. The registered manager was accessible to people using the service and staff. Systems were in place to check the quality of the service provided including gaining the views of people who used the service, their representatives and staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was not as safe as it could be.

People were not protected by robust staff recruitment practices.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to protect them.

People received consistent support from dedicated staff teams.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles.

People's rights were protected by the correct use of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People received support to prepare meals according to their needs.

People's health needs were supported through access to and liaison with healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and kindness.

People's independence was understood, promoted and respected by staff.

People's privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People received individualised care and support.

There were arrangements in place to respond to concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 February 2017

The service was well-led.

The service set out and followed its vision and values for providing care for people.

The registered manager was accessible and open to communication with people using the service, their representatives and staff.

Quality assurance systems which included the views of people using the service were in place to monitor the quality of care and support provided.