You are here

Archived: Totnes Domiciliary Care Service (South Devon Support Service)

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 September 2012
Date of Publication: 4 October 2012
Inspection Report published 4 October 2012 PDF | 85.46 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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 4 September 2012, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

We found that people who were able to were supported and encouraged to give feedback about their support. This was done through tenants meetings. For those people who could not verbalise their opinions and feelings we saw that staff had used other methods. These included observations of people’s mood or body language when doing a particular task. We also saw minutes of relatives meetings held for these people.

Staff told us they felt able to share new ideas and raise concerns. We were told this could be done at staff meetings or supervision sessions. Staff had also completed a staff survey which enabled the organisation to monitor their effectiveness as an employer. We saw results for this were favourable.

The provider had systems in place to formally and informally monitor the service.

Various audits had taken place at the home. The manager had to submit monthly and annual quality assurance reports for the provider. We saw that this included providing evidence that checks had taken place. These included updates of risk assessments, support plans, health and medication plans, nutrition, environmental safety, staff files and the personalised care planning programme used in the home. The manager also explained that the provider regularly monitored the training programme and incident reports.

We saw evidence of external audits as a way of improving the service. For example we saw that Plymouth City Council had performed an audit in July 2011 following a death within the service. They had provided an action plan for improvements. We found evidence during our inspection that these improvements had been made. Mencap had also performed an internal audit in February 2012 which had also shown improvements in all areas of the business had been made.

The use of complaints and incidents were used to monitor the quality of the service. The managers explained they had not received any complaints or had any safeguarding alerts since the last inspection. Staff completed incident reports when a significant event occured at the home. We saw evidence these were monitored by each manager and changes made to the way the service was run, what training was required or how a person was supported.

We saw that in one of the homes in Plymouth staff were provided from Mencap but also an additional domiciliary care agency. Records showed that the other agency used Mencap documentation and clear guidelines were in place for who was the lead agency. There were also joint team meetings to discuss roles and improve communication.