You are here

Archived: Amber Valley (DCC Home Care Service) Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 March 2017

Amber Valley (Derbyshire County Council Home Care) provides personal care for adults in their own homes. This includes people living with dementia and people requiring short term support on discharge from hospital. There were 170 people using the service for personal care at the time of our inspection.

This inspection took place on 13, 14 and 19 December 2016. The service is run from an office in Ripley and provides care to people in central Derbyshire. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to make sure the registered manager was available. In addition we also carried out telephone calls to four people using the service and three relatives on 15 and 16 December 2016 and visited five people in their own homes.

There was a registered manager 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.

The service was following the guidance in people’s risk assessments and care plans and the risk of unsafe care was reduced. People’s records were up to date and indicated that care was being provided as detailed in people’s assessments. The records had been updated to reflect changes in people’s care needs. Medicines were managed safely.

People were safeguarded from abuse because the provider had relevant guidance in place and staff were knowledgeable about the reporting procedure. The provider's arrangements for staff recruitment and deployment helped to make sure there were sufficient staff who were fit to work at the service to provide people’s care.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for people's care and safety needs and for reporting any related concerns. The provider's arrangements for staff training and their operational procedures supported this.

The principles and requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were being met. When required, best interest decisions and capacity assessments had been completed. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff were aware of promoting people’s safety, whilst providing information to support people to make day-to-day decisions.

People received appropriate support to manage their meals and nutrition when required. This was done in a way that met with their needs and choices. People’s health needs were met. Referrals to external health professionals were made in a timely manner.

People and their relatives told us the care staff were caring and kind and that their privacy and dignity was maintained when personal care was provided. People and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and support.

Complaints were well managed. The leadership of the service was praised by external professionals and relatives and communication systems were effective. Systems to monitor the quality of the service Identified issues for improvement. These were resolved in a timely manner and the provider had obtained feedback about the quality of the service from people, their relatives and staff.

Inspection areas



Updated 14 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were deployed effectively to ensure people were assisted in a timely manner. Staff followed the guidance in people�s risk assessments and care plans. Medicines were managed safely. People were safeguarded from abuse because staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was occurring. Recruitment procedures ensured suitable staff were employed.



Updated 14 March 2017

The service was effective.

The provider had established people�s capacity to make decisions and ensured they had given their consent to their care. Staff had received training to provide them with the knowledge to meet people�s individual needs. People had access to other health care professionals when required. People had access to sufficient food and drink of their choice.



Updated 14 March 2017

The service was caring.

Staff promoted people�s dignity and respect. People were supported by caring staff who supported family relationships. People�s views and choices were listened to and respected by staff.



Updated 14 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People received a personalised service and the provider responded to changes in people�s needs in a timely manner. People had opportunities to contribute their views, were included in discussion about the service and knew how to make a complaint or suggestion.



Updated 14 March 2017

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager at the service. Systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were effective. There was an open culture at the service and staff told us they would not hesitate to raise any concerns. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities.