You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

Westcountry Home Care provides personal care to people living in their own homes in North Cornwall from its office in Launceston. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting approximately 60 people and employed around 25 care staff. The service provided domiciliary care visit at keys times throughout the day. During these visits staff assisted people with specific tasks or activities to enable people to continue to live at home as independently as possible.

The service’s was led by a registered manager who is also the providers nominated individual with responsibilities for overseeing the performance of the providers other registered services. The day to day leadership of the service was normally the responsibility of the service’s care manager who was supported by a deputy. The care manager had resigned prior to the inspection and appropriate arrangement had been made to ensure the staff team were supported while a new manager was recruited. On the day of our inspection the new care manager joined the service.

At our previous inspection in 2015 we found that although the service was good overall improvements were required in relation to our question is the service responsive? This was because people’s care plans were not always detailed which meant staff did not always have the information they needed to support them.

At this inspection we found the quality of people’s care plans had improved. Detailed assessments of individual needs had been completed before the initial care visit. Information gathered during the assessment process had been used to develop detailed and informative care plans. These documents now gave staff guidance on how the person preferred to be supported and detailed instructions on how to provide their care. Care plans were available in each person home and staff told us, “They have enough information. It lists everything you have to do during the visit.” People’s care plans were regularly updated to ensure they accurately reflected people current care needs. People were involved in this process and able to request changes to both the timing of visits and the contents of their care plans.

All staff had been trained in how to support people with their medicines. Daily care records included details of the support each person had received with their medicines. However, these records did not include details of which medicines the person had been supported with. We have recommended the service reviews its processes to ensure they reflect recently issued guidance.

Everyone who responded to our survey reported that their staff were kind and caring. People and their relatives were complementary of the care and support provided. Their comments included, “I could not do without them. They are good”, “[The staff] are great, very helpful”, “You could not wish for a better team than they have got there” and “I’m very pleased, more than satisfied and couldn’t manage without them.”

There were enough staff available at the time of our inspection to provide all planned care visits. The service had recently experienced issues due to unexpected levels of staff sickness during the summer holidays. Appropriate action had been taken to address this situation with support from the provider’s other local services. One person told us “They had a bit of a hit by a summer bug, they were very short staffed but still managed to turn up.” A targeted recruitment programme was planned to address these issues and the service was only accepting new care packages where staffing capacity was available.

We received some mixed feedback in relation to the pace at which support was provided and staff arrival times. Some people felt staff were under time pressure while others reported, “They do a good job, they don’t rush me”, We reviewed the service’s staff rotas and daily care records and found that people normally received their visits on time and for the correct duration. Relative told us, “Time is not a pr

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service remains safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service remains effective.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service remains caring.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service was responsive. The quality of the care planning documentation had improved since our previous inspection. These documents were detailed and contained sufficient information to enable staff to meet people’s identified care needs.

The service was regular complimented on its performance and had appropriate systems in place to manage any complaints received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 October 2017

The service remains well led.