You are here

SOS Homecare Limited - Statham House Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 October 2017. The service was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to visit the office, talk to staff and visit people who used the service in their own homes.

SOS Homecare Limited - Statham House is a domiciliary care agency located in the borough of Trafford, Greater Manchester and provides personal care to adults within their own home. At the time of our inspection visit, 110 people used the service.

During 2016 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspected SOS Homecare Limited - Statham House on two occasions. In March 2016 we found the service was not compliant in ensuring people using the service received safe and appropriate care that met their needs. The service was rated ‘Inadequate’, placed into special measures and we told the provider to take appropriate action. In November 2016 we returned to the service and found steady progress had been made. This resulted in an overall rating of ‘requires improvement.’

During this inspection, we found sustained improvement in four out the five key questions. This meant the service achieved an overall rating of ‘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.

We saw missed and late visits were analysed and detailed the circumstance why the missed or late visit had occurred. However, we found the benefits of new electronic technologies implemented by the service had yet to be fully embedded.

Recruitment and selection of staff was robust with safe recruitment practices in place. This included checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). This helped to ensure potential

employees were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had appropriate systems and procedures in place which sought to protect people who used the service from abuse. Staff demonstrated a working knowledge of local safeguarding procedures and how to raise a concern.

Where support with medicines was part of an assessed care need, these were ordered, stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and included details of preventive strategies used by the service to reduce the likelihood of such events occurring in the future.

The staff induction programme was robust and included mandatory training, opportunities for shadowing of more experienced staff and direct observations of practice before new employees were able to work unsupervised with people who used the service.

Services were delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff sought consent prior to providing care and offered people choices to encourage people to make their own decisions.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. People told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and promoted their independence

People engaged with an initial assessment and were involved in the planning of care. Regular reviews were conducted with people, their relatives and where appropriate, other professionals.

People received appropriate information, including details about the complaints procedure. People told us they were confident that if they were required to make a complaint, the management would respond and resolve their issue promptly.

We found there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people which ensured good governance.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the management team and voiced that they would not hesitate to recommend the service to peopl

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was not yet consistently safe.

Improvements to tackle missed and late calls were not yet fully embedded in the service.

Medicines were managed safely.

Systems and procedures were in place which sought to protect people from abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was effective.

New members of staff completed the care certificate and shadowed experienced staff as part of their induction.

Supervision was effective and completed on a regular basis.

People told us the staff sought their consent before providing care. This was documented in people�s support plans.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us they thought the staff were caring.

Staff maintained people�s privacy and dignity and people�s independence was encouraged and valued by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was responsive.

Care and support was person-centred and delivered in accordance with people�s preferences.

People�s care was regularly reviewed in conjunction with them, their relatives and relevant professionals.

The complaints process was robust. People and their relatives told us if they needed to complain they were confident their complaint would be dealt with thoroughly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 December 2017

The service was well-led.

People, their relatives and staff spoke favourably of the management and regarded the service to be well-led.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and action had been taken to make the required improvements.