We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead Birmingham 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 Home Instead Birmingham, you can give feedback on this service.
Home Instead Birmingham is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. There were 93 people receiving personal care support at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People and relatives were consistently complimentary about the kindness of the staff and the reliability of the service they received. We were told of occasions where staff had gone above and beyond what was expected of them and the positive impact on people’s wellbeing.
The management team had a clear ethos of putting people at the centre of all that the service did. This was shared with the staff team who were highly motivated and keen to support people to the best of their ability, and treating them with dignity and respect.
People appreciated the service's role in helping them to remain independent and valued the relationships they had formed with staff. People's care and support was planned in partnership with them. People were happy that they received care and support from staff that they had got to know well and had developed good relationships with. People were empowered to share their experiences which helped them feel valued.
People told us they felt safe with the support of staff. Risks to people had been assessed and staff had a good understanding of these risks and how to minimise them. People told us staff attended the calls at the appropriate time and stayed for the full duration of the call.
Where required people were supported to receive their medication as prescribed and staff had received training to ensure they were confident to provide this support.
People were supported by staff who had the skills to meet their needs. People were able to consent to their care and we saw staff understood the importance of seeking and recording people’s consent before providing support.
People’s nutritional needs were met, and people were happy with the support they received to enjoy a choice of meals. People were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.
People received individualised care and support from regular staff that demonstrated detailed knowledge of people’s individual needs. People told us they were involved in their care and their needs were assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. People’s care records were person centred and guided staff on the way they preferred their care and support to be provided.
People and relatives told us they had not needed to make a complaint but knew how to and would feel comfortable doing so should they need to. Where people had raised concerns, they advised the provider had taken prompt action to resolve the issue.
The management team had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided and looked to develop the service further. People, their relatives and staff all spoke positively about the service and said it was well managed.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection we rated Home Instead Birmingham as ‘Good’ (report published on 17 May 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection which took place on 06 November 2019. Telephone calls were made to people receiving care and their relatives on 05 and 07 November 2019.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
At the time of our inspection the agency was providing personal care to about 80 people in their own homes. There was a registered manager in post who was available throughout our inspection visit. 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.
Everyone we spoke with could not praise the care provided by staff from the service highly enough. People and their relatives described the staff as caring and providing very good care. People felt they were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity were always respected. Staff had developed positive relationships with people. Staff showed that they had an understanding of the needs of the people they were supporting. Staff we spoke with told us how much they enjoyed working for the service and indicated they were committed to providing an excellent service for people.
All of the people we spoke with who were using the service told us that they felt safe with the staff who supported people. Staff understood their responsibilities to take action to protect people from the risk of abuse. In circumstances where the provider had thought people may be at risk of abuse they had made the relevant authorities aware.
There were good systems to ensure that staff were recruited appropriately and were subject to the necessary checks so that people were protected from the risks of being supported by unsuitable staff. There were enough trained staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. Some people needed reminding or support to take their medicines and staff had received training to do this.
People and a relative told us they were supported by consistent staff members who had got to know their needs. Staff received regular training and supervision and had regular meetings to refresh their knowledge and discuss any concerns about people’s care.
When required people were supported to eat and drink in ways which supported their health and respected their choices. People were supported to access health care professionals when necessary to maintain their health.
People’s consent was appropriately obtained by staff when caring for them. People had been asked how they wanted to be supported. When necessary relatives or friends who were close to them were involved in order to help the person express their views.
Arrangements were in place to deal with any concerns or complaints. The registered provider had developed a complaints procedure. People said they knew how to raise complaints and knew who to contact if they had any concerns. All of the staff we spoke with were also confident they could raise any concerns with the managers, knowing they would be listened to and acted upon.
The provider sought feedback from people using the service and their relatives in respect of the quality of care provided. Staff we spoke with felt valued and supported and able to seek advice at any time of the day.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager ensured audits and checks were completed to ensure the service was running properly to meet people's needs and to monitor the quality of the care people received.
The service provided personal care and support to people in their own homes. There were 59 people receiving this at the time of the inspection.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 and relatives told us that they felt safe with the staff who supported people. Staff understood their responsibilities to take action to protect people from the risk of abuse. The provider had investigated a previous allegation but had not informed the local authority as required in line with safeguarding procedures. However, for more recent safeguarding incidents the provider had made the local authority aware as required.
There were good systems to ensure that staff were recruited appropriately and were subject to the necessary checks so that people were protected from the risks of being supported by unsuitable staff.
People and their relatives told us they were usually supported by consistent staff members who had got to know their needs. There were enough trained staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs. Staff received regular supervision and had regular meetings to refresh their knowledge and discuss any concerns about people’s care.
Some people needed reminding or support to take their medicines and staff had received training to do this. Medication records did not follow available good practice guidance but the provider had plans in place to improve this.
People, where they needed support in this area, were supported to eat and drink in ways which supported their health and respected their choices. People were supported to access health care professionals when necessary to maintain their health.
People’s consent was appropriately obtained by staff when caring for them. People had been asked how they wanted to be supported. When necessary relatives or friends who were close to them were involved in order to help the person express their views.
People told us that the staff were caring. Staff showed that they had an understanding of the needs of the people they were supporting.
Arrangements were in place to deal with any concerns or complaints. The registered provider had developed a complaints procedure. People said they knew how to raise complaints and knew who to contact if they had any concerns. All of the staff we spoke with were confident they could raise any concerns with the managers, knowing they would be listened to and acted upon.
The provider sought feedback from people using the service and their relatives in respect of the quality of care provided. The majority of relatives and staff we spoke with were confident in how the service was led. Staff we spoke with felt valued and supported and were able to seek advice at any time of the day. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
People or their relatives told us they were happy with the support the staff provided and that it met their needs. One relative told us, 'The quality of care that they provide is very good.'
People or their relatives told us that they usually had the same care staff who arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time.
We found that people were protected and safe from abuse. Staff recruitment records showed that new staff had been checked to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
Staff told us they felt supported to meet the care and welfare needs of the people who used the service.
Systems were in place to monitor the service that people received to ensure that the service was satisfactory and safe.
During our review, we discussed the quality of the service provided by the agency with local authority colleagues involved in monitoring the agency. They said they had not been made aware of any concerns about the service being provided.
People or their relatives told us they were happy with the support the staff provided and that it met their needs. One person told us 'I am completely satisfied and my standards are high.' People felt that staff helped them to be as independent as possible and that they provided them with the care and support agreed. One relative told us 'I can see the difference in her, having someone to talk with.'
People receiving care, and their relatives, said that the care staff treated them with
kindness and respect. One person told us 'They are respectful of my needs', a relative told us 'They are very good at respecting privacy and dignity.'
People or their relatives told us that they usually had the same care staff who arrived on time and stayed for the agreed length of time. One person told us 'They have never been late.' A relative told us, 'We have the same five carers, they always let us know if it is someone different and then they come and shadow the usual carers first.'
During our review, we discussed the quality of the service provided by the agency with local authority colleagues involved in monitoring the agency. They said they had not been made aware of any concerns about the service being provided.
The relatives we spoke with were happy with the quality of care provided. They said 'they've been very good' and 'I'm really glad I found them.'
Relatives told us that the agency had carried out an assessment before the service started and that the service was 'responsive' and flexible. Relatives we spoke with were confident that they could raise concerns if they were not happy with the care being provided and that they would be listened to. One relative said that occasionally the person using the service did not like a member of staff and the office were 'really good' at allocating a different member of staff.
Relatives told us they were happy with the support provided and that it met the needs of the people using the service. Relatives told us that the people using the service were treated with respect and that staff maintained their privacy and dignity. They told us that staff completed the care and support required and that staff stayed longer than agreed when this was necessary.