Archived: Golden Homecare Services

We visited the offices of Golden Homecare Services on 8 December 2016. We told the provider 48 hours before the visit we were coming so they could arrange for staff to be available to talk with us about the service.

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.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and care workers understood how to protect people from abuse and keep them safe. People told us they received care from familiar staff who arrived at the expected time and completed the required tasks.

There were enough suitably trained care workers to deliver care and support to people. The provider checked the suitability of care workers to work with people who used the service during their recruitment. Care workers received an induction when they started working for the service and completed regular training to support them in meeting people's needs effectively.

Care workers were knowledgeable about people's needs. Care plans and risk assessments contained relevant information for staff, to help them provide safe care in a way people preferred. People and their families had regular opportunities to meet with staff to review their care.

There were processes to minimise risks associated with people's care. These included risk assessments and safe systems to manage people's medicines. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of these processes.

The provider and registered person understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Care staff completed training to develop an increased knowledge and understanding of the MCA. Care staff knew to gain people's consent before they provided care.

People told us care workers were kind and caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support they required. People received care from staff who were respectful and ensured people's privacy and dignity was maintained.

People knew how to complain and said that the management team listened to them and responded promptly to their concerns. Staff felt supported to do their work and people felt able to contact the management team at any time.

There were systems to monitor and review the quality of service and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through regular communication with people and staff, surveys and spot checks on care workers' practices.

We spoke with four people who used the service, the registered manager and three care staff .

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel entirely safe with these staff."

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistle blowing policy.

Staff knew about risk management plans and we found that people were supported in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.

The provider had appropriate recruitment systems in place to ensure staff were of good character and fit to carry out their role.

Systems were in place to make sure the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

We saw from the records we looked at that the staff had received the information, training and managerial support they needed to do their job effectively. There were arrangements in place that ensured staff had the most up-to-date information about people's care needs. This meant that because staff had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences and were able to provide effective care.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. One person told us, "The staff are very kind and caring, they couldn't be better."

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

People were asked their views about the service and the provider acted on comments that people made. One person told us, "There is always someone available that you can contact at anytime." Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this. We found staff discussed people's care needs with them on a regular basis.

Is the service well-led?

We found the provider had a clear complaints procedure and that people who used the service knew how to make a complaint.

The provider had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. We found the registered manager checked that risks were managed effectively.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of care. Staff told us the service was well organised and they felt supported by their manager.

We looked at four people's care plans and spoke with people by phone. We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. People we spoke with told us, 'They're all very good. They often stay longer than they're supposed to.' One person said, 'Generally, they're friends rather than carers.'

We spoke with staff and examined the agency's safeguarding policy. We also looked at the agency policy in relation to complaints and whistleblowing. Staff were well informed regarding procedures to protect vulnerable people if they felt they were at risk and the agency had comprehensive policies in place.

We examined staff files and found that people were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks were carried out before new staff were employed.

We spoke with the provider and examined records and found that there were good levels of quality assurance monitoring to maintain and continually improve standards.

We looked at care plans and saw that people's care needs were assessed and care was planned in a way that ensured their safety and welfare. One person told us their care was very good, this person said, 'the staff know exactly how my care should be provided, that's what keeps me in my own home.'

Another person told us, 'staff stay and do as they should.' Someone else told us, 'I am so happy with the care people, I wouldn't have anyone else.'

We saw there were policies and procedures in place to ensure people received their medication safely and appropriately. Staff told us they had received training in relation to medication and understood their roles and responsibilities.

There was a complaints procedure in place. People we spoke with told us they knew how to raise concerns. One person told us, 'I would be very surprised if I had to use it.' Other people told us that when they raised concerns these had been taken seriously and addressed immediately.