We carried out a review of the data available to us about Quality Home Care Limited - Suite 1 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 Quality Home Care Limited - Suite 1, you can give feedback on this service.
Quality Home Care Limited - Suite 1 is a domiciliary care agency which provides assistance with personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection 63 people were receiving support with personal care needs. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Where risks to people had been identified, assessments were in place to manage and mitigate these. People received their medicines when they needed them. People were supported by adequate numbers of staff who were safe and competent to work with them. People were protected from the risks associated with the control and spread of infection.
People were supported by staff who were well trained and competent in their role. People were assessed before they used the service to ensure their needs and preferences could be met. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people's rights were understood and protected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's health care and nutritional needs were monitored and understood by staff.
People and their relatives told us staff were kind and compassionate. People were treated with respect and their right to privacy was understood and respected by staff. People were fully involved in decisions about the care they received.
People received a service which met their needs and preferences. People’s communication needs were assessed and understood by staff. People were provided with information in a format which met their needs. People felt confident that any concerns would be taken seriously, and action would be taken to address them.
The service was effectively managed by a team who were committed to providing a high standard of person-centred care. The provider promoted an open and honest ethos and learned from mistakes. Staff were motivated and well trained and there were effective systems to ensure staff remained competent in their role. People’s views about the service were valued and there were effective procedures in place to continually monitor and improve the quality of service people received.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The service was rated good at our last inspection (report published October 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Quality home care provides personal care for people in their own homes. At this inspection they were providing care and support for 38 people.
A registered manager was in post at this inspection. 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 were safe as staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them from danger, harm and abuse. Staff knew how to support people in a way that minimised the risks of harm associated with their care.
People were supported by enough staff to safely assist them and who arrived to provide support within the timescales agreed. People received help with their medicines from staff who were trained to safely support them.
The provider completed checks on staff before they started work to ensure they were safe to work with people. The provider had systems in place to address any unsafe staff practice.
People received care from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. New staff members received an induction to their role and were equipped with the skills they needed to work with people. Staff attended training that was relevant to the people they supported and any additional training needed to meet people’s requirements was provided.
Staff received support and guidance from a management team who they found approachable. People and staff felt able to express their views and felt their opinions mattered.
People had positive relationships with the staff members who supported them. People’s likes and dislikes were known by staff who assisted them in a way which was personal to them. People were involved in decisions about their care and had information they needed in a way they understood. People had their rights protected by staff members who were aware of current guidance informing their practice. People were given information in a way they could understand.
People had their privacy and dignity respected and information personal to them was treated with confidence. People had access to healthcare when needed and staff responded to any changes in needs promptly and consistently. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain good health.
The provider undertook regular quality checks in order to drive improvements. The provider engaged people and their families and encouraged feedback. People felt confident they were listened to and their views were valued.
Care plans provided staff with instructions on how people preferred their care needs to be met. People told us they or their relative were involved in the assessment process, planning and reviewing their care.
There were recruitment and selection processes in place. Checks were undertaken before staff began working unsupervised with the people who used the service.
Staff received training to keep people safe and meet the needs of the people who used the service. We saw there were support systems in place to ensure the care workers could carry out their role effectively.
The provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service it was providing. The views from people who used the service and staff were gained through satisfaction surveys and meetings.
People told us they received information about the agency before they agreed to the service. They told us that the agency visited them and carried out an assessment of their needs before their service started. People said they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. They told us staff respected them and maintained their privacy and dignity.
People said they felt safe in the presence of their care workers. One person commented, 'All the staff are very pleasant and I feel comfortable with them.' Care workers knew that they had a duty of care to take appropriate action to protect vulnerable people in their care.
People were complimentary about their care workers. One person said staff had positive attitudes, were reliable and had a caring nature. People considered staff were skilled in their work. Not all staff had received training to understand the specific health conditions of the people they supported.
People told us they were 'very' satisfied with the service they or their relative received. Comments included, 'It's a perfect service, the staff are great, we couldn't ask for anything more.' 'I'm more than happy with everything and wouldn't want to go anywhere else.'