You are here

Archived: Amber Valley (DCC Home Care Service) Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 13 December 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 25 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 17 people who used the service including two relatives. People told us that they were generally satisfied with the care and the service they received. People’s comments included “They treat you as an individual. The staff are friendly; they have a chat and always make a point of asking how you are; Wonderful girls. They keep me going and cheer me up when feeling low. I can’t fault them at all; they never rush me, and always give me enough time and will stay longer if needed.”

Most people said that they found the service to be reliable and flexible, as they usually received the help they needed at their preferred times from regular staff that were aware of their needs. However several people told us that their call times varied, and their care was provided by a number of different workers. This meant that some people did not receive calls at their preferred times, from regular staff.

People said that they felt that the staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. Relatives shared this view.

We found that staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal to enable them to carry out their work and to meet people's needs.

The service was well managed. The effect on people using the service was that they generally received consistent standards of care and service.

Inspection carried out on 14 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven people who use the service and four relatives.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received, and felt that their needs were being met. One person told us ''the service is fantastic; I give it 5 stars. It is our lifeline.’’ Another person told us ‘’ the care and service provided is excellent. I can't praise the staff enough.’’

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet peoples' needs. Although two people felt that the allocated time of their visit, was not long enough to provide the care and support they needed.

People found the service to be reliable and flexible as they usually received the help they needed at their preferred times.

People usually received care from regular staff who knew their needs. However recent changes to the area teams, had affected the continuity of staff for some people using the service.

People had agreed to the care and treatment they received. People’s care records provided an accurate account of the care provided, to ensure they received appropriate care.

The provider had effective systems in place for managing complaints. People felt listened to and able to raise concerns with staff if they were unhappy.

Four relatives told us they were satisfied with the care and support their family member received.

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2011

During a routine inspection

As part of this inspection we spoke by telephone to 10 people who were supported by the Homecare Service. All of the supported people we spoke to expressed very positive relations with the staff who provided support and care, and good relations with the agency’s office based coordinators and management staff. They told us that staff worked sensitively and carefully and that ‘everything gets done properly’ and that ‘I’ve never had any problems, they work very carefully and sensitively’. We were also told about the flexibility of the arrangements being made and how the agency was responsive to requests to change things. Staff told us that ‘re-ablement is about people doing more for themselves. Some staff have difficulty changing their approach though’ and that ‘flexibility and changes are routinely responded to, these are changes to help them’, that ‘they’re in their own home and we help them to stay there’ and that ‘you have to treat people as individuals and respect their privacy; we work very carefully and professionally’.

Patterns of care delivery worked well for the people being supported. A very small number commented on the high numbers of staff supporting them but nobody expressed any concerns with the timekeeping aspects of the service.

People told us in general terms about their confidence in the agency’s staff to work safely and the staff that we spoke to all told us that they had received proper training, including about abuse of vulnerable people, and they demonstrated an understanding about their responsibilities to report any concerns.