You are here

Archived: Teme Valley Care Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 15 March 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 15 March 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake the inspection. This was because the service provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes and we needed to make sure someone would be available at the office.

The service provides personal care to people living either in their own home or the home of a family member. At the time of the inspection, approximately 73 people used the service.

Since our last inspection the provider of this service had changed and a new manager had been appointed but had not started their employment. As there was an interim manager (who was covering the service) and the provider were present at the time of the inspection.

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.

Care staff at this service are known as caregivers.

People told us they felt safe with the caregivers, who supported them in their own homes. Caregivers had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from different types of abuse and how to report any concerns.

People felt they were supported by enough caregivers to meet their individual needs.

People’s health and risks to their health were understood by caregivers. Caregivers understood what was required to care for people and what action to take if they became concerned over any changes in people’s health.

People were cared for by caregivers that had satisfactory pre- employment checks. To ensure they were safe to work at the service.

People where appropriate, were supported by caregivers to take their medicines. People’s medicines were checked regularly to ensure caregivers assisted people in accordance with how medicines were prescribed.

Caregiver’s were regularly supervised and their training needs identified, in order for them to keep their knowledge up-to-date. The provider was in the process of identifying and remedying any shortfalls in caregiver’s training.

Caregivers understood how to obtain people’s consent. The provider and interim manager acted within the requirements of the law and acted within the obligations placed upon them.

Caregivers told us, they enjoyed their work and understood the people’s preferences, they cared for.

People were treated with dignity and respect by caregivers.

People knew how to make a complaint. We saw the provider responded and recorded concerns for future learning.

The quality of care people received was regularly monitored to ensure people were happy with their care they received.

Inspection carried out on 3 October 2013

During a routine inspection

When we carried out our inspection the provider was providing personal care for 36 adults. During this inspection we spoke with two directors of the company and the office manager. Following our inspection at the office we spoke with two people who used the service on the telephone. We also spoke with four relatives of people who used the service. In addition we spoke with three members of staff who visited people to provide care.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support they or their relative had received. We were told that consent was gained prior to the provision of care. One person who used the service described the care provided as: �Excellent�. A relative described staff as: �Wonderful� and they: �Always check to make sure x (persons name) isn�t getting sore�. Another relative told us that: �Can�t fault them. They are caring and can�t praise them enough.�

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken to make sure that they were suitable to care for people in their own homes.

The provider had systems in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service provided. This was to make sure people received appropriate care. The registered manager was aware of where improvements in the service were needed.

Systems were in place to ensure that people were aware of their right to complain about the service provided to them.

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

Inspection carried out on 19 February 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection there were 51 people who were receiving care and support. We spoke with one person who used the service, four relatives and four care workers. We visited the office and looked at five care records and other supporting documents. We spoke with the registered provider and the partner.

Everyone spoke positively about their care workers and told us that they felt fully supported. Without exception people said that all of their care workers spoke with them in a calm and respectful way.

People spoken with told us that their care was personalised to their needs. They told us they were happy with the standards of care they received. A relative said, "They have made a huge difference, I can't praise them enough." Another relative told us, "It's a good service, I am very satisfied."

People or their relatives confirmed that they had been involved in and agreed with the care arrangements that had been put in place.

They told us they felt safe with the care workers who visited them. They said that if they had any concerns about their safety they would speak with the registered provider or senior staff.

The registered provider had systems in place to monitor the standards of the services provided and to make ongoing improvements for the benefit of the people who used it. People spoken with told us they knew how to make a complaint but that they had not needed to.