You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 May 2012
Date of Publication: 15 June 2012
Inspection Report published 15 June 2012 PDF | 48.06 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 28 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited the agency office and spoke on the telephone with people who used the agency and their advocates. We found that people were able to express their views and had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

We found that care and treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that met with the essential standards. We talked with a few people about their experience of the care and service they received from the agency. Overall, they were complimentary about the care and support they had received from the agency. People told us the agency was “definitely very good”. “I just could not manage without them. They enable X (person’s name) to stay at home”.

We found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

We found that people who used the agency were protected from the risk of abuse. People told us that they felt safe whilst receiving care from the agency and they were aware of how to complain.

People and their advocates told us that overall they received a good standard of care from the staff who worked for the agency. They told us “Some of the carers are excellent. All the rest are very good”. “They are very efficient, polite, timing is usually very good. Sometimes they have a ‘blip’ if someone is taken ill, they always keep you informed. I can’t fault them”.

We found that staff received appropriate induction and training. We found that staff received regular supervision and were encouraged and supported to undertake further training to increase their skills and knowledge.

People who used the agency were asked for their views about the care and treatment provided. People we spoke with had been asked to contribute to the annual satisfaction survey. All of the people we spoke with knew how to raise concerns. Overall, we found that the provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.