You are here

Mencap - West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

This inspection took place on 5 and 9 January 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the office.

Mencap West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing a service for 36 people with a variety of care needs, including people living with a learning disability or who have autism spectrum disorder. The agency was managed from a centrally located office base in Fareham.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The registered manager oversaw the running of the full service and was supported by seven service managers who were allocated a geographical area to manage. Service managers were responsible for individual parts of the service, for example support to people in a supported living unit or support to people living in their own home.

People and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Mencap West Hampshire Domiciliary Care Agency to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction designed to ensure staff understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development. Staff meetings were held every month. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits to meet people’s needs.

The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments and staff were aware of how to keep people safe and the information provided staff with clear guidelines to follow. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. People received their medicines safely. Staff had an understanding of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices.

Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and encouraged to make choices and had access to a wide range of activities.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in people’s care plans. Care plans provided comprehensive information which helped ensure people received personalised care. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and could visit the office to discuss any concerns. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was safe.

People felt safe and secure when receiving support from staff members. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to report concerns.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and people were involved in recruiting staff to the service.

Staff were trained and assessed as competent to support people with medicines and risks were managed appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and one to one supervisions.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People chose what they wanted to eat and drink. People were supported to access health professionals and treatments.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was caring.

People and their families felt staff treated them with kindness and compassion. Staff knew people well and understood their care and support needs.

People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. Their dignity and privacy was respected at all times.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were detailed and personalised and their needs were reviewed regularly to ensure their care plans remained appropriate.

People were actively encouraged and supported to engage with the local community and take part in a variety of recreational activities.

The registered manager sought feedback from people. An effective complaints procedure was in place.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 February 2017

The service was well led.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager, who was approachable and supportive.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.

The service had appropriate policies in place.