Home Instead (Bury)

Updated 19 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

This was an announced inspection and was conducted by one adult social care inspector on 08 and 09 January 2018.

We requested and received 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 this information to help plan the inspection.

Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider had made to us. Notifications tell us about any incidents or events that affect people who use the service. We also asked Bury Healthwatch and local authority for their views of the service and they did not have any concerns.

We spoke with four people who used the service, a relative, the registered manager, the provider and two care staff members.

We looked at the care and medicines administration records for four people who used the service. We visited four people in their own homes with their permission. We also looked at the recruitment, training and supervision records for four members of staff, minutes of meetings and a variety of other records related to the management of the service.

Updated 19 February 2019

Home Instead Senior Care Bury is a domiciliary care agency which provides care to people who live in their own homes. The service was currently supporting 110 people.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

At our last inspection of February 2016, we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People we spoke with and a relative told us staff were reliable and were trusted which made people feel safe. Policies, procedures and staff training in safeguarding topics gave staff the knowledge to identify and report abuse.

The systems for the administration of medicines was safe and staff had their competency to administer medicines checked to ensure they followed safe practice.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people who used the service said they had the same staff which meant they knew them well. Staff were also robustly recruited to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were investigated to find possible solutions.

The office environment and was well maintained and contained sufficient equipment to meet the day to day running of the service. We saw staff had access to computers, telephones and other equipment to provide support to staff and people who used the service.

There were risk assessments for personal care and to ensure each person’s home was safe.

People were supported by staff who had training in nutrition to ensure their dietary needs were met.

Staff received an induction when they commenced working at the service and sufficient training to feel confident in their work Staff were also able to discuss their careers during supervision and appraisal to help further their careers.

People signed their agreement to their care and treatment and were involved in reviews of their care. The service worked within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA).

People who used the service said staff were kind and did exactly what they needed them to do.

All records were stored safely and staff were taught the principles of confidentiality.

The background history of people who used the service helped staff formulate a plan which encouraged independence where possible.

Plans of care were detailed and reviewed regularly. The plans clearly informed staff of the care and support people required.

Activities were provided which were suitable to the people who used the service. Staff researched social groups people may like to attend and encouraged them to do so.

People we spoke with did not have any concerns but were given the information to raise a complaint if they wished.

The provider liaised with many other organisations which we saw gave people benefits as individuals and for the service as a whole, for example attending local authority meetings to discuss best practice guidance.

The service gained the views of staff, people who used the service and family members to help to maintain and improve the service. Managers conducted audits to check on the quality of service provision. There was an open and transparent culture and encouragement for people to provide feedback.