You are here

Eleanor Nursing & Social Care Ltd - Poole Office Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 October 2018

Eleanor Nursing & Social Care Ltd - Poole Office is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults living in their own houses and flats in Poole and Bournemouth. Not everyone using Eleanor Nursing & Social Care Ltd - Poole Office receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. Around 160 people were receiving personal care at the time we inspected.

At our last inspection 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 and met all fundamental standards.

People were protected from abuse, infection and avoidable harm. There were checks that staff were of good character and suitable for their role. Risks to people were assessed and managed, whilst their preferences were respected. Medicines were managed and administered safely. We have made a recommendation about auditing medicines.

Overall, there were sufficient trained and skilled staff to provide people’s care, although there had been pressures on staffing over the summer holiday period. This meant that for a while rotas were not sent out to let people know who would be coming to them and at what time. This was not the case when we concluded our inspection.

Things that went wrong were addressed in an open and transparent manner. There were reviews to ensure all necessary action had been taken following accidents and incidents, and analysis to identify any trends that could suggest further improvements were needed.

Staff mostly understood what people needed and had the skills and experience to provide this. Where people had support with preparing and consuming food and drink, they were satisfied with this and had food of their choice. Staff liaised with health and social care professionals where there were concerns about people’s health and people wanted the service to organise this for them. Staff were supported through regular training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness and compassion, and their privacy and dignity were respected. Staff had respect and affection for people and got to know them over time. People said their regular staff understood how they liked things to be done, but this was less often the case with unfamiliar staff. Where people had gender preferences in relation to staff, these were respected. People’s independence was promoted.

People were happy with their care, which was tailored to their individual needs. They were involved in decisions about their, or where appropriate their family member’s, care. Regular staff had a good understanding of people’s care plans, which were up to date. Assessments and care plans flagged up sensory loss or impaired communication and the way in which staff should support people with this; staff provided the support required.

Complaints were taken seriously and resolved promptly with the appropriate action taken. People and their families were given information about how to complain about their care.

The service had a positive, open, person-centred culture. There was open communication with staff. Staff were motivated to provide a good service. During the inspection the registered manager returned as planned from long-term leave. People and staff had confidence the registered manager would bring about imp

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 October 2018

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 October 2018

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 October 2018

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 October 2018

The service remains responsive.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 October 2018

The service remains good.