You are here

Archived: RV Care Limited (Somerset) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

This inspection took place on 7 and 13 April 2016. This was an announced inspection which meant the provider knew two days before we would be visiting. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to make sure the manager, or someone who could act on their behalf would be available to support our inspection.

RV Care Limited (Somerset) is a small domiciliary care agency, which provides care and support to people in their own homes on a short and long term basis. The agency currently supports people in Avonpark Village in Limpley Stoke and within Bath and the surrounding villages.

The agency had a registered manager in place. 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. The registered manager was present throughout the inspection.

People were complimentary about the service they received. They said they had developed a good rapport with staff and felt safe, as staff knew them well. They said they were never worried about the possibility of their visit being missed and staff arrived on time, unless in very heavy traffic. In such cases, the office always notified them of the delay. People told us they never felt rushed and enjoyed their time with staff. They said staff promoted their privacy and dignity and supported them in a caring manner. People were aware of how to make a complaint and would confidently raise any issue of concern or abuse, if required. They were regularly asked their opinion of the service and were fully involved in the development of their care plan. People told us the service was responsive to their needs and their visit took place at a time, which was convenient to them. They said the office staff were flexible and able to change their visit at short notice, if needed.

Staff told us the consistency of visits enabled them to develop relationships and know people’s likes and dislikes. They said they were given sufficient time to travel from one person to another and had adequate time within each visit, to support people effectively. They said this meant they were rarely needing to rush or running late. Staff told us they had the required training to do their job effectively but could ask for additional support, if they were not sure about a particular topic. Staff told us they were very well supported and received regular informal and formal support from the management team.

The service was well managed with clear leadership. The registered manager had developed a range of systems since their appointment and was committed to improving the service further. This including slightly increasing the agency’s size and developing specialisms such as end of life care. There were enough staff to support people effectively with focused recruitment taking place, to accommodate new care packages. People were given consistency through the allocation of their visits. Regular audits and telephone interviews or visits to people, were effectively monitoring service provision. However, whilst people did not generally require staff support with their medicines, the medicines policy was in need of review. This was because the descriptions of whether staff prompted, assisted or administered medicines were not fully accurate.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was safe.

People told us the service was reliable and there were no issues with late or missed visits.

Individual risks to people’s safety were appropriately identified and acted on to enhance people’s safety.

There were enough staff to effectively meet people’s needs.

Organised recruitment practices ensured all new staff were suitable for their role.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was effective.

People received support from a small team of staff who knew them well.

Staff felt valued and were well supported. Staff received a range of training to help them do their job effectively.

People were happy with the support they received from staff to eat and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were positive about the staff and the service they provided.

The consistency of visits enabled relationships between people and staff to be developed. This enhanced the quality of interactions and people’s confidence.

Staff promoted people’s rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs, which enabled individuals to live in their own home and follow their preferred interests.

Each person had a care plan, which identified the tasks to be completed although the information did not show a person centre approach.

People received regular reviews to ensure their care remained appropriate and no changes were required.

People knew how to raise a concern but did not feel the need to do so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 June 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered manager provided clear leadership and was committed to the development of the service.

A range of audits were being used to assess, monitor and improve the safety and quality of the service.

People were encouraged to give feedback about the service.