Eden Care at Home Limited (Head Office)

Eden Care at Home Limited (Head Office) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides nursing and personal care support to children, adults and older adults who live in their own home. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 179 people, some of whom had a live-in care worker.

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.

People gave us positive feedback about the service. Comments from people included, “The girls that come are so kind, really friendly and wonderful,” “I would give them top marks, they are excellent” and “They [Care workers] are brilliant, very capable.” A relative told us, “I could not manage without them.” Another relative told us, “The carers are excellent.”

The registered persons had not notified us of all the events they were required to do so. We made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were supported by people who had been recruited to ensure they had the right skills, however the provider did not routinely ensure all the required checks were undertaken. We made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were protected from abuse, as staff had received training in how to recognise potential concerns. Where required the service worked with the local safeguarding team to investigate concerns.

People told us they were routinely treated with dignity and respect. Comments from people included, “They [Care workers] are all very respectful.”

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

The service supported people to access meaningful activities, these include the attendance at a local social and exercise group and visiting local garden centres.

There was a very clear management plan in place. Staff told us they felt valued and were rewarded for going ‘above and beyond’.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This inspection took place on 28 January and 1 February 2016. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to make sure the people we needed to speak with would be available.

The most recent comprehensive inspection of the service was on 20 May 2014. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.

In March 2015 we carried out an inspection in response to concerns raised with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in respect of recruitment of and support for staff. We found the service was meeting the requirements of the relevant regulations at that time.

In September 2015 concerns were raised with the CQC about shortages of staff, visit lengths being curtailed and poor moving and handling practice. The provider investigated and responded to this information. They told us they had not found any evidence to support the concerns raised, however, they told us they would re-enforce good practice to staff through spot checks, supervision and team meetings. We looked at these areas of the service’s operation during this inspection in our conversations with staff and people who used the service. This included responses to our requests for feedback prior to the inspection. We did not find any significant concern on the part of those people who used the service or the staff we spoke with.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People were positive overall about the quality of the care they received, however, a number told us they did not always get their visits at the time they expected and when there were changes in their regular care staff they were not always told of this beforehand. They were satisfied care staff stayed for the time they were supposed to.

People’s safety was maintained and protected. Staff received regular training and support they required to provide a high standard of care to meet people’s needs. Care plans set out clearly how people preferred their care to be provided. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

People were supported to eat and drink and take their medicines. Staff received the appropriate training to enable them to do this safely and effectively.

Staff said they felt well supported by the provider and management team. The provider sought feedback from staff, people who received care, their relatives and from professionals responsible for arranging care.

We spoke with managers and care staff, we looked at recruitment and induction records. We assessed the evidence and information we gathered to answer the questions we always ask: Is the service safe? and is the service effective?

We found in respect of the standards assessed the service was safe. The staff recruitment process protected people from receiving care from unsuitable people. Checks were made about their past employment, their health, their qualifications,abilities and whether they had any criminal conviction which would mean it was not safe to employ them to provide care to people in their own homes.

We found in respect of the standards assessed the service was effective. Staff received induction training and support and were able to accompany more experienced care staff to gain insight and confidence before they were permitted to work in people's homes on their own.

The senior management of the service gave assurances they would ensure that policies and procedures in respect of staff recruitment and induction were always fully complied with on every occasion new staff were recruited.

Staff were fully trained in safeguarding procedures and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities.

The agency had a comprehensive policy for the recruitment of their staff. This ensured they employed suitably trained people to deliver the care to their clients.

All records we requested were immediately available. They were correctly and neatly filed, and were written to a high standard. They were stored appropriately with due regard for safety and confidentiality.

People received care from staff who had received appropriate training. Regular supervision of staff took place to ensure care standards were maintained and to address any training requests. Staff told us they felt well-supported in their roles and had development opportunities.

We found that the service had a robust quality checking system, and comments, incidents and complaints were logged appropriately in order that learning may take place. The quality of the service was regularly reviewed, and people's views were taken into account and acted upon.