You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

Home Instead Senior Care is registered to provide personal care for people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 60 people were receiving personal care.

The inspection took place on 24 January 2017. We gave short notice of the inspection to make sure the people we needed to speak with were available.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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 was run.

People were protected from the risk of potential abuse and told us they felt safe because of the way staff cared for them. Staff took action to care for people in ways which promoted their safety and people's care plans gave clear guidance for staff to follow in order to promote people's well-being. There were enough staff employed to care for people and people and their relatives felt they could rely on staff to provide the care they needed. Where people wanted assistance to take their medicines this was given by staff who knew how to do this safely.

People benefited from receiving support from staff with the knowledge and skills to care for them. Staff cared for people in ways which promoted their rights and recognised where people were independent.

There were no mental capacity assessments in place where there were concerns about people’s ability to retain information and make decisions. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

Where people needed care so they would have enough to eat and drink this was given by staff. People were supported by staff who understood the risks to people's well-being and worked with people and health professionals where needed, so people were supported to maintain their health.

Caring relationships had been built between people and staff and staff took time to chat to people so they did not become isolated. People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was taken into account in the way staff cared for them. Staff listened to people and took action to make sure people were receiving their day to day care in the ways they wanted.

People were involved in deciding how their care should be planned and risks to their well-being responded to. Where people were not able to make all of their own decisions the views of their relatives and representatives were acted upon. Care plans and risk assessments were updated as people's needs changed.

People and their relatives knew how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. Systems for managing complaints were in place, so any lessons would be learnt.

Staff understood how the registered manager expected people's care to be given so people would receive the care they needed in the way they preferred. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback on the quality of the service and to make suggestions for developing the service further. The registered manager checked the quality of the care provided and introduced changes to develop people's care further.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was safe.

People were safe from harm because staff were aware of their responsibilities and able to report any concerns.

Risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.

Medicines were well managed.

Emergency systems had been put in place to keep people, visitors and staff safe.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was not always effective.

Where people could not consent to their care the provider was not always guided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We made a recommendation that the service reviews its Mental Capacity Training and assessment processes and how people are supported with their finances.

People were supported to make choices regarding food and drink. People’s fluid and nutritional intake was monitored where required.

People’s healthcare needs were met and staff worked with health and social care professionals to access relevant services.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff provided the care and support people needed and treated people with dignity and respect.

People’s views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff recognised and promoted the role of family and friends in people’s lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People received person centred care and support.

People were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes.

Staff had worked to ensure people had access to healthcare services.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager and provider demonstrated good leadership and management. They had an open, honest and transparent management style.

The provider had systems in place to check on the quality of service people received and any shortfalls identified were acted upon.