Frantec

At our last inspection of 29 February 2016, the service was rated good overall. 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.

The service was introducing new systems into the service to improve people’s experiences. Some of these were still in the development stage and we could not assess the impact they would have on people. We found that people were provided with an exceptionally caring service. People had positive relationships with their care workers. The care and support provided to people demonstrated to them that they mattered and were cared for. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were respected and promoted. People’s views were listened to and valued and the systems in place demonstrated that people’s views and experiences were valued.

The service continued to provide people with a safe service. Risks to people continued to be managed, including risks from abuse and in their daily lives. There were enough care workers to cover people’s planned care visits. Recruitment of care workers was done safely. Where people required support with their medicines, this was done safely. The risks of cross infection were minimised.

The service continued to provide people with an effective service. People were supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers cared for them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Systems were in place to support people with their dietary needs, if required. People were supported to have access to health professionals where needed. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide a consistent service.

The service continued to provide people with a responsive service. People received care and support which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. There were systems in place to support and care for people at the end of their lives, where required. A complaints procedure was in place.

People continued to receive a service which was well-led. The governance systems assisted the management team to assess and monitor the service provided to people. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result, the quality of the service continued to improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. Care workers were provided with training and guidance in how to keep people safe and what they should do if they were concerned that a person was at risk or was being abused.

There were sufficient numbers of care workers who were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Systems for recruiting care workers and checking that they were suitable to work in the service were intended to ensure people’s safety.

The provider had systems in place to provide medicines safely to people who required assistance.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely. Where care workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing action was taken to make sure received appropriate care and treatment.

People told us that they had good relationships with the care workers that supported them.

People and their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. People’s consent was sought before they were provided with care and support. The service was up to date with the Mental Capacity Act 2015.

A complaints procedure was in place. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, addressed and used to improve the service.

The service had an open and empowering culture. There was good leadership in the service. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in providing safe and good quality care to the people who used the service. The service took swift action to address identified shortfalls and as a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

We spoke with two people's relatives who told us that the care and support provided to their relatives met their needs. One person's relative said about the care their relative was provided with, "They actually care," and, "My (person) really matters, they are amazing."

We looked at the care records of five people who used the service and found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent. We saw that the provider worked in co-operation with other professionals involved in people's care.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service. We looked at the personnel records of five care workers and spoke with three care workers. We found that they were trained and supported to meet the needs of the people who used the service.