We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sygmacare 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 Sygmacare, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives were complimentary about their experience with Sygmacare and would recommend using the service. One person shared, “I know them all, and I look forward to them coming. We have a laugh and a chat as they work. A relative said, “The carers treat [family member] like I would myself. I’m very happy with them.”
The management team and staff worked with people, relatives, and other professionals to achieve person-centred care and good outcomes for people.
Risks to people had been assessed and were managed safely. People were supported by a staff team who were safely recruited and knew how to protect them from potential harm.
Staff felt supported and valued in their role by the management team and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People received their care visits at the times they expected, for the length of time agreed, and from staff they knew.
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff adhered to infection prevention and control procedures in line with legislative requirements and recognised best practice guidelines.
Staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people and ensured people's privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and relatives described being able to raise any issues with the staff and management team and were confident these would be addressed.
Whilst the registered managers delivered care and maintained an overview of activities, we have made a recommendation they review and strengthen their systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service to ensure they are robust.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 4 January 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
At our last inspection of 13 October 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
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.
The service continued to provide a safe service to people. This included systems designed to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse. There were systems in place to make sure that there were enough care workers to cover people’s planned care visits. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Where people required support with their medicines, this was done safely. There were infection control procedures in place to guide care workers in how to minimise the risks of cross infection.
Care workers were trained and supported to meet people’s needs. The service understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2015 and people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers cared for them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Systems were in place to support people to eat and drink enough, where they required support. People were supported to have access to health professionals where needed. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide a consistent service.
Care workers had good relationships with people who used the service. People’s rights to privacy and independence were promoted and respected. People’s views and preferences were listened to and acted on about how they wanted to be cared for and supported.
People received care and support which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. A complaints procedure was in place and complaints were acted upon and used to improve the service.
The service continued to have an open and empowering culture. The service used comments from people and incidents in the service to learn from these to drive improvement. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Sygmacare provides personal care support to people living in their own homes. When we inspected on 13 October 2015 there were 65 people using the service. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to know that someone would be available.
There were two registered managers in post who also owned 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.
There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe and actions were taken when they were concerned about people’s safety.
There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised.
Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.
There were sufficient numbers of care workers who were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Care workers had good relationships with people who used the service.
People or their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.
Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely. Where care workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment.
A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed in a timely manner and used to improve the service.
The service had an open and empowering culture. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. There was good leadership in the service. The service had a quality assurance system in place and as a result the quality of the service continued to improve.