You are here

Southcroft Homecare Team (DCC Homecare Service) Good


Inspection carried out on 18 July 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out between the 18 and 19 July 2016. The inspection was announced, and we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice to ensure there was a manager available to assist with the inspection process. When we last inspected the service in February 2014, we found them to be meeting the standards. At this inspection we found them to be meeting the standards.

Southcroft Homecare Team (DCC Homecare Service) is a domiciliary care service providing re-ablement support and care for disabled adults. Re-ablement is about helping people regain the ability to look after themselves following illness or injury. The service is managed from an office in Ripley and covers the Amber Valley and Erewash districts. The service is registered to provide personal care. There were 65 people using the service at the time of our inspection visit, not all received personal care.

There were two registered managers at the service. 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 who used the service were complimentary about the staff and the standard of support they provided. People felt staff supported them in the decisions about their care.

The principles and requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were being met. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff helped ensure people’s safety and supported them to make day-to-day decisions.

People felt safe and secure using the service. The provider had and followed a recruitment procedure to help ensure the staff recruited were suitable to work with vulnerable people in their own homes. There were systems and procedures in place, which were followed, to ensure appropriate pre-employment checks were made prior to staff working with the people who used the service. Staff understood how to protect people from potential harm and how to report any concerns.

People told us how much they valued the service they received. They said the staff understood and respected their individual needs. People were supported by staff who promoted and respected their dignity and privacy.

The registered managers ensured all staff had a full understanding of people’s needs and had the knowledge and skills to meet them. Training records were up to date and the registered managers ensured staff attended training deemed necessary to deliver care to the people. Staff felt the registered managers provided formal and informal support.

There was a well-established management structure in place which ensured the staff had support when they needed it. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and how to provide people with good support.

The provider had systems and checks in place to ensure the service delivered was safe and of good quality. People were involved in giving their views about the service. There was a positive, open and inclusive culture at the service.

Inspection carried out on 18, 20 February 2014

During a routine inspection

There were 50 people using the service at the time of our inspection visit, not all received personal care. Following the inspection visit to the service, we contacted people by telephone. We spoke with four people using the service, two relatives, three staff and three health and social care professionals.

We saw that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were in place. This meant they received support in a way that met their needs.

The service worked well with other professional disciplines to provide coordinated, personalised care packages to each person. This included working with care managers in the local authority, clinical psychologists and specialist nurses.

Sufficient numbers of staff were currently employed to ensure people’s needs were met effectively.

The provider had a number of monitoring systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received. People’s views were sought through satisfaction surveys. People were made aware of how to make a complaint and were confident that any concerns raised would be addressed.

Inspection carried out on 13 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke by telephone with four of the people who use the service. They all agreed that their privacy and dignity was respected by Southcroft staff and that staff were polite with them. One person said that staff were, “absolutely lovely.”

All the people we spoke with confirmed that staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible. One person said, “[My support worker] is so supportive…she’ll help me do things…if it wasn’t for the Southcroft team I wouldn’t be where I am now.”

The people we spoke with felt that all their needs were met by Southcroft staff and felt that staff understood their needs. They confirmed that staff arrived on time, stayed for an appropriate time with them and never missed a visit. People said that the Southcroft office kept in touch with them and communicated any changes to their care package. They all knew how to contact the Southcroft office if they were concerned about anything.

We spoke to two people who were being supported to take their prescribed medicines. One of these people felt they had their medicines when needed and thought staff were competent in handling medicines.

The people we spoke with all felt that support workers were competent and did a good job. They also thought that workers supported them in a way that met their needs. Two of the people we spoke with said that they had some degree of specialist medical need and both thought that support workers were knowledgeable about managing these needs. They felt safe and comfortable with workers attending to these particular needs.

The people we spoke with all said the quality of the service they received was very good. One person said it was, “absolutely 100% excellent.” The people all told us they would know how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service they received, but all were happy with the service.