Network Healthcare Professionals Limited - Dursley

At our last inspection in October 2015 we rated the service 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.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were supported to maintain good health and be involved in decisions about their health. They were provided with personalised care and support. Staff had the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles and their training was updated annually. People were positive about the care they received.

Risks to people’s and staff safety were identified, assessed and appropriate action was taken. Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and knew how to keep people safe and report concerns. People’s medicines were safely managed. There were thorough recruitment checks completed to help ensure suitable staff were employed to care and support people.

People were encouraged to make choices about their care and support and to be as independent as possible. People were protected by staff having regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions.

Quality assurance procedures were used to monitor and improve the service for people and included them in developing their care and support. Feedback from people and their relatives or supporters was used to improve the service when their views were sought annually. Monitoring and auditing of systems had ensured action was taken when required. Regular staff and management meetings ensured concerns were discussed and changes were implemented when required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We used the information we collected during this inspection, to answer one of the five questions which now form the basis of our inspections. Is the service safe?

Is the service safe?

We found that detailed 'medication risk assessments' were completed and the level of support people required was recorded. People had signed a consent form for care staff to administer their medicines. Medicine care plans provided additional information about how people liked to take their medicines. Regular monthly medicine audits were completed at the agency office when records were returned. In depth medicine audits were completed by the quality and risk assessment staff in people's homes annually.

Medicine administration had improved and people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. Recently 13 of the 45 care staff had completed medicine training and a further ten staff had planned medicine training on 30 September 2014. The agency planned that all staff would update their medication training annually. The training information was clear about what 'prompting' and 'assisting' people with medicines meant. The agency kept an electronic record of when staff required training updates. The agency had a detailed medicines policy for care workers to refer to.

People's needs were assessed and care documentation provided staff with detailed information about how people should be supported with their care. Risk assessments had been completed to ensure staff knew how to support people through safe methods.

There were appropriate systems in place for the recruitment and selection of staff to help ensure people using the agency were protected from harm. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise abuse and the reporting procedures in place. The provider had responded to any allegations of abuse appropriately.

We found the agency's medicines policy had not always been followed. Care plans did not reflect the practice of supporting people with their medicines as set out in the policy.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service included seeking the views of the people who used the agency. When complaints were received they were handled appropriately.

We spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. We were told "the girls are very efficient at doing their job, timekeeping is good and they go out of their way" and "smashing girls".

We found care documentation had been developed to direct staff about how people should be supported with their assessed needs. This included appropriate individual information about the delivery of people's care that had been regularly been reviewed.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the needs of the people they supported. They demonstrated they knew what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse.

Appropriate recruitment checks were undertaken before staff began working for Network Health and Social Care. Staff had received appropriate training and supervision to support them in their role.

The systems in place to evaluate practices included the views of the people who used the agency so that their comments could help to improve and develop the service.