• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Devon Home Care Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Priory Chambers, 38, Fore Street, St. Marychurch, Torquay, Devon, TQ1 4LX (01803) 320023

Provided and run by:
Devon Home Care Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Devon Home Care Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Devon Home Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

18 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Devon Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency that was providing personal care to people in their homes in Kingskerswell, Newton Abbot, Kingsteignton, Teignmouth and Dawlish. At the time of our inspection 75 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People felt safe and comfortable when staff visited them in their home. People were kept safe as potential risks had been assessed and managed.

There were enough staff to complete the planned visits. People received personalised care from staff who knew them well. People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff.

People’s needs were met by staff who had received regular training and support. People were treated with respect and staff understood how to protect people’s rights.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and supported to maintain their independence. Care plans contained up-to-date information about each person’s needs and preferences.

People and their relatives were asked for their views about the service. The most recent feedback results showed that people were happy with the service they were receiving.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

The registered manager was committed to improving care where possible and had developed effective working relationships with other professionals and agencies.

The service met the characteristics for a rating of “good” in all the key questions we inspected. Therefore, our overall rating for the service after this inspection was “good”.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (The report was published on 14 October 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about this service until we return to visit as part of our re-inspection programme. If we have any concerns, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

8 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Devon Home Care Limited provides care and support to mostly older people, who live in their own homes. The services provided include personal care and domestic work for people living in Newton Abbot, Teignmouth, Dawlish and the surrounding areas.

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.

We visited the office on 8 September 2016. We carried out phone calls to people and their relatives on 9 and 12 September 2016. We carried out home visits on 12 and 13 September 2016. At the time of this announced inspection 63 people were receiving personal care from the service. The service met all of our regulations at the previous inspection in April 2014.

People were happy with the staff who visited them. Comments included "I get on well with all of them”; “Some staff go above and beyond, they’d do anything for you”; “I can’t speak highly enough of them” and “They’re lovely”.

Staff spoke about the people they cared for with compassion and concern. People told us staff were respectful and polite. We saw staff and people interact in a friendly way. People were pleased to see the staff. The staff knew people well and chatted with them with warmth. Staff checked if they could do anything else for people before leaving.

People told us they felt safe and comfortable when staff were in their home and when they received care. People told us "I feel completely safe" and "I feel comfortable". Staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and understood how to report any concerns in line with the service's safeguarding policy. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place. This helped reduce the risk of the provider employing a person who may be a risk to vulnerable people. People told us staff knew how to meet their needs. Comments included "They know how I like things to be done" and "They’re very observant and know when I’m not well". Staff told us they were happy with the training they received. Staff told us they felt well supported and had regular opportunities to discuss their work.

Care plans were developed with each person. They described the support the person needed to manage their day to day health. Staff knew people’s preferences and offered choices. They responded to people's requests and met their needs appropriately.

People told us staff were usually on time and had time to meet their needs in the way they wanted. People were provided with visit record so they knew which staff would be visiting them. Staff told us they tried to ring people with any changes, and the majority of people confirmed this happened.

Risk assessments had been undertaken for each person. These included information about action to be taken to minimise the chance of harm occurring to people. We saw risk assessments had been carried out in relation to mobility, epilepsy, medication, and skin care. Risk assessments relating to each person's home environment had been completed.

People were supported safely with their medicines and told us they were happy with the support they received. Staff completed medication administration record (MAR) sheets after giving people their medicines. The MAR sheets were audited to ensure people had received their medicines as prescribed to promote good health.

The service sought regular feedback. People told us they were asked for feedback over the phone, during visits and through questionnaires. People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns or make a complaint. They were confident their concerns would be taken seriously. People told us they didn't have any complaints. Comments included "No problems at all” and “They couldn’t improve anything”. Where complaints had been received they had been managed in line with the company policy. One person told us when there had been an issue in the past it had been dealt with promptly.

People told us the management were approachable and they were happy with the service. Comments included "I can speak to any of them” and “It’s all going really well”. Staff told us there was open culture. Staff said "You can come in and discuss things at any time” and “They’re really welcoming, you can talk to any of them”.

The registered manager was keen to develop and improve the service. They kept up-to-date with best practice and met up with other care providers to share good practice. Records were clear, well organised and up-to-date. An audit system was in place to monitor the quality of the service. Unannounced checks to observe staff's competency were carried out on a regular basis.

15 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with eight people using the service and their relatives, five staff supporting them, speaking with the manager and provider, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the arrangements that had been made in relation to security and staff entering their homes. They told us that they felt safe when care was delivered. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Staff recruitment files showed us that the service had undertaken appropriate checks.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service told us they were happy with the care they received. Comments included 'I'm very happy with the care I receive' and 'they encourage me to do more than I would otherwise'. We spoke with staff who were able to tell us how they met people's care needs. We looked at care plans and spoke with the people who used the service. This gave us evidence that staff knew people well. People's health and care needs were assessed. Care plan reviews had been carried out to ensure they reflected people's current needs.

Is the service caring?

Feedback from people about the staff was positive, for example; 'The care I get from the girls is lovely.'; 'They will do anything for you' and 'I find them wonderful, I couldn't manage without them'. When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and knew them well.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they started to receive care. The service carried out an assessment to ensure it was able to meet people's needs. We saw the complaints procedure was available in people's care plans. People told us they felt able to speak to the manager or staff if they were unhappy about something. They felt confident that the service would deal with any matters to their satisfaction.

Is the service well-led?

At the previous inspection in October 2013, we identified concerns in relation to care plans, safeguarding, medication management, staff recruitment, and quality assurance. As part of this planned inspection we followed up on these concerns. We found that improvements had been made. Staff told us they had seen improvements since the previous inspection. Comments included 'the care plans are straightforward to follow and easier to work with' and 'everything's improved'. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they had regular meetings with the manager. Staff commented 'you can talk to the management when you want to, it always gets sorted out', 'I was on the phone to the manager last night, it's not a problem' and 'they're very approachable'. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times. People who used the service also told us they found the management approachable. One person commented 'brilliant, very caring and very nice'.

22, 23 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they felt that care workers treated them with respect. They said 'they're always very pleasant' and 'the carers ask how I like things to be done'. People appreciated the care they received. Comments included "they're good support and they know what they're doing' and 'we have one carer who is very thorough and goes out of their way to help'. Care workers were able to tell us how they met people's care needs, it was clear they knew people well. Care plans were not written in enough detail to ensure that care workers could follow the instructions.

Care workers knew how to identify the possibility of abuse and what to do if they had any concerns. The provider's safeguarding policy did not contain the right procedure for the service to follow when allegations of abuse were made.

People we spoke with were happy with the way staff supported them to take their medication. There was no system in place to ensure that people received the right medicines at the right time.

Recruitment procedures were incomplete. For example, three care workers had started work before essential checks had been undertaken. Two care workers had not completed induction training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs.

People were asked to give their views about the support they received. There was no system in place to ensure checks or audits were carried out to identify, monitor and manage risks to people.

25, 28, 29 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We talked with five people who used the service. People told us that they found the care staff very kind, supportive and helpful. Everyone said they were satisfied with the care received and the way that the staff provided care. One person said 'The staff are absolutely brilliant. I really don't know what I would do without them.' Another person said 'They (the staff) really do care. They listen to everything you say. If I want anything they will do their best to help me.'

People we spoke with told us that their care and welfare needs were being met. We were told by people that staff provide 'excellent care' when providing support with daily living tasks including help with personal care.

People told us that they felt safe and well supported by staff from the service. People who used the service had no concerns about the ability of staff to respond to safeguarding concerns. They felt that their human rights were upheld and respected. One person said 'The manager is lovely. She comes out and checks on things.'

People we spoke to said that staff were supportive and helpful. Staff were able to speak confidently about the care they delivered and understood how they contributed to people's health and wellbeing.

We found that most staff were not up to date with safeguarding training which could put people at risk. We also found that the service did not have some systems in place to check on and monitor the quality of the service.