We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead (Bury) 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 Home Instead (Bury), you can give feedback on this service.
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.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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.
Caregivers were aware of and had been trained in safeguarding procedures to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service. The people who used the service who we spoke with told us they felt safe. They said, “[The caregivers] keep you safe, I trust them and they know me.”
There was a robust recruitment and selection procedure in place to check that potential staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people and had the right personal qualities to work effectively with people. Caregivers were always introduced to the person before receiving care from them and this was a ‘golden rule’ of the organisation.
People we visited were impressed by the consistency, reliability and flexibility of the caregiver team supporting them in comparison to other services that they had used previously. One person told us, “They are extremely reliable. They let me know in advance if they are going to be late.”
Risk assessments for physical health needs and environmental risks helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service. Arrangements were in place to help ensure the prevention and control of infection and the safe administration of medicines.
Caregivers received induction training before they started to work with vulnerable people and received support from the registered provider and the registered manager to help them feel confident within their roles.
People we visited spoke positively about the caregivers who supported them. One person said, “There is lots of noise and laughter when they come.” “If I have a problem they will jump through hoops to sort it out.” “They are good with [relative] and they also look forward to [caregivers] visits,” “[Caregivers] have always got a smile on their face,” “The caregivers are friendly, and I get on with them well” and “I am not treated like a patient. We work well together as a team. This is the best agency I have ever had. It’s working now and I am grateful for that.”
One person said, “They have gone the extra mile in arranging contacts with other support agencies and gave me flowers and a card on my birthday.” A caregivers member said, “I live nearby so I can pop in and check if there is a problem, which put’s the person’s mind at rest.”
People had care plans in place and they had signed to indicate their consent to the care and support they received.
People we spoke with told us that they were fully in control of their personal care needs one person said, “They let me drive this ship. I am in control and they let me do things for myself which is important to me.” “I am an individual not a number.” Another person told us, “The caregivers stick to the plan. They would not get away with it with me!” and “We try and work as a team and help each other.”
There was a complaints procedure in place for people to use if they wanted to raise any concerns about the care and support they received. An independent organisation asked for people who used the service, their relatives and caregivers for their views and opinions about the service provided. One caregiver commented, “I have never worked with a care company like Home Instead before. They treat me fairly and everyone here is a good team. I feel Home Instead has very strong values, not only to the clients but also the caregivers. I feel very welcomed, supported and most of all very valued.”