All inspections: Thomas Pocklington Trust Homecare (Wolverhampton)

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. There were 17 people living there on the day of the inspection. We spoke with four people, two members of staff and the care coordinator.

People told us they were asked for their consent before care and support was given. One person said, "Staff do ask for my consent before they do anything". Records showed that people signed to give their consent.

Records showed that people's needs were documented and centred around their expectations. One person said, "I like living here because there is support when I need it".

Medication processes were in place to support people's needs and audits were completed to ensure those processes were being followed.

We found that staff were appropriately qualified and training and induction were in place for staff.

We found that a system was in place for monitoring trends and checking on the quality of service provision, however there was not a system in place to allow people to comment on the quality of their service.

Records were clear and fit for purpose and kept securely as part of the provider's procedures.

People had received mixed experiences in relation to the care and support provided by the Thomas Pocklington Trust. Some people were very positive and others gave examples of negative experiences.

People had been involved in developing and agreeing their care and support plans. They told us that these plans reflected their needs and were updated when anything changed.

People said that staff supported them to develop skills to enable them to develop or regain their independence. Some people told us that staff were often rushed and this impacted on the quality of the service they received.

Most people managed their own medication. We found that when staff supported people they did not always complete appropriate paperwork and audits had not picked this up as an issue.

Staff told us that they currently felt well supported and received mandatory training as required. They considered that specialist training would be beneficial to them to enable them to better understand the needs of the people they supported.

People we spoke with felt safe and staff understood the principles of protecting people and respecting their rights.

Overall, staff recruitment files were well organised and demonstrated that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Systems were being implemented to monitor and assess the service and there was a complaints procedure in place that people were aware of.

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service.

We visited the service and spoke with the manager, four members of staff and three people who used the service.

We looked at the support packages and documentation for the people who used the service and who we spoke with. We saw regular reviews of care and support were completed and contact with people was recorded. People told us they were fully involved in making decisions about their support needs and how it was provided. Some people told us 'The staff are very good and helpful'. Some people told us the staff had not always listened to what they said. Staff told us of the support they offered to people each day, the care and support plans we looked at did not accurately correspond with the information relayed to us by the staff.

We saw that some information on documents used in the office that could have compromised the confidentially of people and meant that their the privacy and dignity may not be upheld.

People told us of the very active social activity programme that is arranged both on the premises and in the local community. Staff told us they meet with people frequently to discuss additional activities.

People told us of their satisfaction with their accommodation and how much they enjoyed living in their flats. They told us they had no wish to move anywhere else and were quite contented with their life at the moment.

Staff told us of the training they had completed and that they felt it was sufficient for them to do their job.

Satisfaction surveys are distributed to people who used the service on a regular basis. Systems were not in place to adequately monitor the quality of the service, the plans for future improvements and progression of the service.

Archived: Thomas Pocklington Trust Homecare (Wolverhampton)

All Inspections

29 August 2013

During a routine inspection

26 February 2013

During a routine inspection

8 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service