You are here

Signet Healthcare Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

Signet Healthcare Limited provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care. People using the service had a range of needs such as learning and/or physical disabilities and dementia. At the time of our inspection 30 people were receiving personal care in their homes.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

When we last visited the service on 7 and 12 September 2016 the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’, and we identified four breaches related to staffing, safe care and treatment, recruitment and good governance respectively.

Therefore, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions 'Safe', ‘Effective’ and 'Well-Led' to at least good. At this inspection we found action had been taken to make improvements.

The service had made improvements to ensure people were safe. There were systems and processes in place to support care workers to understand their role and responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm. Where safeguarding concerns had been identified there were records to confirm the service had taken appropriate action.

Risks to people were minimised because there were effective systems and processes in place. The risk assessment contained detailed information for supporting care workers on how to protect people.

Staffing had improved since the last inspection. The service had filled many of the staff vacancies and there was an ongoing recruitment drive. Pre-employment checks had been carried out to make sure new care workers were of good character. As a result, there were sufficient numbers of suitable care workers to support people to stay safe.

There was a process in place to monitor any accidents and incidents. Guidelines were in place for care workers on how to report accidents and incidents. Learning derived from incidents was documented and discussed with staff.

People were protected from the risks associated with poor infection control because the service had processes in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination.

There were systems in place to ensure proper and safe use of medicines. Care workers had been trained and assessed as competent to support people to take their medicines.

Care workers understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and we found that people's consent was sought before the service provided care to them. Care workers were aware of the need to assess people's capacity to make specific decisions.

People’s health needs were met. They had their needs assessed across a wide range of areas. Care plans included details about how needs in these areas were met.

There was a comprehensive training system in place. Care workers received an induction before they could provide care to people. They also underwent a 12-month probationary period, which was followed by regular training and support.

Care workers had regular supervisions with their line managers. They also received spot checks to monitor their performance when caring for people. Those who had been at the service for longer than 12 months had also received an appraisal.

People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink. Their care plans contained detailed information about food and drink. Care workers monitored people's weight and sought professional guidance when required.

Care workers respected people’s privacy. There were arrangements for gaining access to people’s homes, whilst maintaining privacy and ensuring people’s safety.

Care workers had built good relationships with people. The service matched care workers to meet people's preference

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was safe.

The service had made improvements to ensure people were safe. Risks to people were minimised because there were effective systems and processes in place.

Staffing had improved since the last inspection. The service had filled many of the staff vacancies. Pre-employment checks had been carried out to make sure new care workers were of good character.

There was a process in place to monitor any accidents and incidents. Guidelines were in place for care workers on how to report accidents and incidents.

There were systems in place to ensure proper and safe use of medicines. Care workers had been trained and assessed as competent to support people to take their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was effective.

Care workers understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and we found that people's consent was sought before the service provided care to them.

People�s health needs were met. Care plans included details about how people�s needs were met.

There was a comprehensive training system in place. Care workers received an induction before they could provide care to people. This was followed by regular training and support.

Care workers received regular supervisions and appraisals. They also received spot checks to monitor their performance when caring for people.

People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink. Their care plans contained detailed information about food and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was caring.

The service had policies and procedures which took into account people's human rights and helped to prevent discrimination.

Care workers respected people�s privacy. There were arrangements for gaining access to people�s homes, whilst maintaining privacy.

Care workers supported people to maintain their independence. Care plans encouraged care workers to take time to support people to participate as fully as they could.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in their care. Care plans reflected their needs, likes and dislikes and had been reviewed on a regular basis.

The service recognised the importance of providing information to people in an accessible format, tailored to their needs.

There was a complaints procedure which people and their relatives knew about. People told us they were aware they could call the office or speak with care workers if they had any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 May 2018

The service was good.

There was a registered manager who provided strong leadership and effective management of the service. She had led improvements since our last inspection.

There was an overall improvement in the governance arrangements. There were systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

People and staff all told us they felt the service was well-led.