You are here

Archived: HQL Domiciliary Care & Outreach Support

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 May 2013
Date of Publication: 16 July 2013
Inspection Report published 16 July 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 20 May 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights overall. However risk assessment was in need of improvement.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People who use the service, told us they were able to make decisions and choices about their care and support. This was done by talking about this with them when they first began to use the service and when any concerns about their care arose. Parents spoken with felt supported and had no concerns about the quality of care.

People said that they had discussed their support and preferred routines with staff. They received the help they needed and wanted. People spoken with confirmed that they had given consent to their care and felt in control of the care they received. People using the service discussed matters relating to how the service was run and issues that affected them. They said that they felt the staff listened to what they said and that they were given support to make their own decisions. One parent spoke of the support a staff member gave to their relative and discussions with regard to his preferred activities.

Evidence viewed supported the aim of the agency as stated in their statement of purpose and showed that when the agency received a referral for an individual a care needs assessment was undertaken. This was carried out before any support was put into place. This was completed by people trained and assessed as competent to undertake this process. This meant that people received the care they needed and wanted.

Discussions with staff confirmed that the agency strived to provide a personalised service tailored to the needs of the people using the service. Staff spoken with expressed and discussed examples on how care was delivered. For example one staff member spoke of the support they gave with personal care and assisting with cooking meals. they also spoke of how they supported an individual to be more independent and part of the wider community. We reviewed and discussed with the staff, the care records of two people out of the three people who used the service. These showed the support needed. Guidance for staff was available so that they supported people consistently with actions that achieved the desired goal. The care plans however, were not always regularly updated. This meant that people were at risk should their care needs change.

An initial assessment of risk was seen for the individual and the person’s home. However, not all plans of care contained thorough risk assessments and were seen to be brief. The provider may find it useful to note that where risk assessments were needed the agency needed to ensure that strategies were in place to minimise such risks in more detail.

Daily notes were not available for the people who used the service; Therefore we were unable to judge if the care planned was that which was delivered. The provider may find it useful to note that whilst evidence was available from staff that these were completed no evidence was seen of daily notes.