Archived: Synergy Homecare - Manchester

At our last inspection the overall rating of the service was ‘good’. At this inspection we found that evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Safe recruitment practices were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse and there was a whistleblowing policy which staff felt confident to use if they needed to report poor practice.

There were sufficient staff to care for people. Risks to people's safety were assessed and measures put in place to mitigate any risks. Medicines were administered safely. Infection control was covered in the induction and practice was checked through spot checks carried out by senior staff. This was well managed and staff understood their responsibilities.

People's care plans showed an assessment of their needs had been undertaken by the service before any care and support was provided. People that we visited confirmed that they were happy with the support from the provider and that their needs were being met as agreed in the assessment and recorded in the care plan.

There was good support in place for staff. This included an induction that covered key areas of knowledge, shadowing experienced members of staff, competency checks and spot checks by senior staff. We have made a recommendation about staff training on the subject of moving and handling.

People had access to external healthcare professionals and the care files demonstrated that the service was responsive to people’s health needs.

Support with food and drink was identified in the initial assessment and was transferred into the support plan.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People told us that the staff were kind and caring and people were involved in their care and this included regular reviews.

People’s independence was promoted and staff were very clear that it was their role to encourage people to do as much as possible for themselves before providing an intervention. Staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and dignity.

Equality and Diversity information in the care files was revised during the inspection to ensure that people were given the opportunity to share relevant information if they chose to in line with the Equality Act 2010.

Access to independent advocacy was promoted and information about how to contact these services were in the files that we looked at in people’s homes.

The service had improved and was now responsive. Care plans were produced in partnership with the person to meet their identified needs. Each file had a checklist that was signed by people to confirm that everything had been completed as required. The care plans were well organised with a clear consistent format that was easy to follow. There was detailed information about people’s needs and clear guidance for staff to follow.

The care files were person centred and we saw evidence that the service was responsive to changing needs.

There were good systems in place to manage complaints. Accidents and incidents were managed appropriately. The service received good feedback from annual surveys and good feedback collected throughout the year.

The service met the Accessible Information Standard. They routinely asked what people’s communication needs and preferences were, and these were clearly recorded in the people’s files that we looked at.

The service did not deliver end of life care directly but could support relevant professionals such as district nurses where applicable.

The service was well led. The registered manager was committed and staff received good support. The service had good systems in place to monitor performance. Feedback from staff we spoke with about the manager was overwhelmingly positive.

The service had policies and procedures in place, which covered all aspects of service delivery. There was an up to date certificate of registration with CQC and insurance certificates on display as required. We saw the last CQC report was also displayed in the premises as required. CQC had received all the required notifications in a timely way from the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This was the service’s first inspection since Sevacare (UK) Limited had registered with the Care Quality Commission at this location. At the time of this inspection the service was providing support to people living in Oldham and Manchester.

Sevacare (Oldham) provides support with personal care, domestic tasks and shopping to people living in their own homes.

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.’

Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard adults from abuse, having completed training during their induction period. They were able to describe various types of abuse, and knew how to report any concerns they had about patient safety.

There was a robust recruitment process to ensure that all staff employed were suitable to care for vulnerable people. Staff received a thorough induction and shadowing period and undertook additional qualifications such as ‘The Care Certificate, which gave them the knowledge and skills to care for service users. Staff received supervision, and the quality of their care was monitored through ‘spot checks’ by senior staff.

People spoke positively about the caring nature of the staff, and described them as being kind and compassionate. Staff understood about the need to respect dignity and privacy and could describe ways they would do this. People who used the service said carers asked their consent before undertaking personal care, and staff offered choice to service users.

People we spoke to said that if possible they liked to receive care from the same group of carers and the care coordinators who compiled the work rotas tried to ensure that people received care from those who were familiar to their needs. Some people regularly received the same carers, but this was not always the case, particularly if there was a shortage of staff due to unexpected sickness. There was an on-going recruitment drive to increase the number of staff available, so that people could receive timely visits from familiar carers.

People had their needs assessed when they started using the service and the information gathered was used to develop a personalised support plan which enabled staff to care for them in a way appropriate to their individual needs. Support plans were reviewed annually or more frequently if needed. We found that some plans were not detailed enough, which meant that elements of care could be missed. We have made a recommendation about the writing of support plans.

Staff were positive about the company and about the registered manager and senior staff. They felt they were supportive and approachable and that they could easily raise any concerns with them.

Risks to people’s safety and health were assessed, managed and reviewed and accidents and incidents were reported and dealt with appropriately. We have made a recommendation about financial risk assessments.

People knew how to complain if they were unhappy about the service and we found that any complaints were dealt with appropriately and promptly. People were asked for their opinion of the service in an annual ‘service user survey’ and feedback from the survey was passed to staff as a way of maintaining standards.

The provider carried out regular quality checks and audits, which included areas such as office equipment safety and medication and documentation audits. These ensured that standards were being maintained.