Background to this inspection
Updated
27 April 2019
The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team: The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type: Home Instead Senior Care Ltd-Crewe is a domiciliary care agency providing support to people in their own homes.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection: We gave the provider 24 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure people would be available.
Inspection activity started on 26 February 2019 and ended on 27 February 2019. We visited the office location on the first day of the inspection to see the registered manager; review care records and policies and procedures and interview staff. We also visited two people using the service at their home. On 27 February 2019, we spoke with a further four people using the service and five relatives over the telephone to gather their views of the service. We interviewed one member of staff at the office location and gathered feedback from a further five staff following the inspection.
What we did: Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We also contacted the local authority to gain their views.
The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.
As well as gathering feedback from people using the service, their relatives and member of staff, we also spoke with the registered manager and provider. We looked at four people’s care files, four staff recruitment records, medicine administration charts and other records relevant to the quality monitoring of the service.
This report reflects the findings of the inspector and the expert by experience.
Updated
27 April 2019
About the service: Home Instead Senior Care Ltd- Crewe is a domiciliary care agency providing support to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection they were supporting 64 people, however only 34 of those people were receiving a regulated activity. This inspection only looked at the support provided to the people who received a regulated activity of personal care.
People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe when care staff were in their home and that the support they received was also safe. Risks to people had been assessed and measure put in place to reduce the risks. The registered manager reviewed all accidents to look for any trends and actions that could be taken to prevent recurrence.
There were sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff employed to ensure people’s needs could be met. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and how to raise any concerns they had.
People were supported with their medicines safely, by staff who had been trained. People told us the service was flexible. When required, people’s scheduled call times had been altered to enable them to attend appointments.
Consent to care was sought and recorded in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When people were unable to consent, best interest decisions were recorded.
Staff felt well supported in their role and able to raise any issues with senior staff and the registered manager. Regular training had been completed by staff and they received supervisions and an annual appraisal to further support them in their posts.
The service worked with other professionals and agencies to help ensure people’s needs were met effectively. Advice provided was clearly recorded and followed by staff.
Systems were in place to gather feedback from people regarding the service and action was taken to improve the service, based on the feedback. An effective system was also in place to manage complaints.
Care plans were in place that were detailed and reflected people’s needs and preferences. People were involved in the creation and review of these plans, to ensure they remained accurate and effective in meeting their needs.
People and their relatives told us staff were caring and compassionate and spoke positively of the quality of care they received. People were supported to be as independent as they wanted to be and their privacy and dignity was maintained by staff.
The registered manager completed regular audits on the quality and safety of the service and took action to address any issues identified.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Published 27 September 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the previous rating.
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.