You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

Goodwill and Hope provides support and personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 45 people were using the service. The service operates in the Farnborough and Aldershot area and provides packages of care for predominantly older people commissioned by the local authorities and for people who make private arrangements to receive care.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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.

Our previous inspection on 11, 12 and 14 May 2015 identified three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address the concerns we had identified. Sufficient improvement had been made for the provider to meet the requirements of the three previously breached regulations in relation to person-centred care (Regulation 9), good governance (Regulation 17) and requirements relating to workers (Regulation 19).

The provider had introduced new quality assurance systems and additional checks had been put in place to support the registered manager and staff to continually evaluate the quality of the service and risks in the service. We found these systems had been effective in driving some improvements for example, in staff training and supervision, care plan reviews and ensuring learning form safety incidents took place. However, there were aspects of the quality monitoring for example, in relation to recruitment records and ensuring people’s capacity to consent to their care where kept under review that required some improvement to be judged as consistently good.

People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults, were able to identify the signs of abuse and knew how to raise any concerns. Possible risks to people were identified and plans were put in place to reduce these risks. All staff knew how to deal with any emergencies to ensure people remained safe when accidents or safety incidents occurred.

There were sufficient staff to provide people's care. People received consistency in the staff rostered to provide their care. People's care was provided by staff who had received guidance about their care needs and to whom they were introduced prior to their care commencing.

Peoples' medicines were managed and administered safely by trained and competent staff to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

There was a process in place to ensure staff received a relevant induction and that their competency to deliver people's care safely and effectively was then assessed through regular spot checks.

People were asked for their consent before care was provided. People told us they were involved in making decisions about their care whenever possible and were supported to be as independent as they could be. Staff were reliable and people told us that their dignity and individuality were respected. Where people were supported to eat and drink they were asked about their food and drink choices and any concerns were notified to family members or the GP if required.

An assessment of people’s needs was completed before they started using the service and individual plans detailed the care and support to be provided. People told us they received the care as detailed in their care plans. The provider was implementing a new electronic care planning system to further improve the review of people’s care plans to ensure the information would always be current.

There was effective communication between all staff. People and staff told us the service was well-led, the staff were reliable and the management team was approachable and s

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was safe.

Processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

Risks to people were identified and guidance provided to and followed by staff to keep people safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to provide peoples' care safely and meet their needs.

Recruitment processes for new staff were detailed and documented which ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Peoples' medicines were managed and administered safely by trained and competent staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received training to enable them to meet people’s needs and had access to effective professional development to increase their knowledge. Staff received one to one meetings with their line managers and felt supported as a result.

Where necessary, people were supported with their dietary and healthcare needs. Staff followed the instructions provided by healthcare professionals.

Staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and evidenced this by offering people choice when delivering care, people's rights were being protected as a result.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke positively about staff and the care received.

People’s care was delivered in a way which took account of their individual needs and the support they required to live their lives independently at home.

People were treated with dignity and their rights upheld by staff. Their care was delivered in private and people’s property and homes were treated with respect by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and individual care and support plans were developed; people’s preferences were considered and respected.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint and the complaints policy and procedure was available for them to refer to if required.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

There were systems in place to evaluate and monitor the quality of the service provided. However some of these had recently been introduced and time was needed to ensure all aspects of quality assurance processes were implemented consistency and evaluated as being effective.

Staff and people told us the service was well run and the registered managed was visible and approachable when guidance or support was required.

The provider took account of people’s views about the service through reviews, phone monitoring, satisfaction questionnaires and spot checks of staff.