You are here

We are carrying out checks at Peninsula Care Devon. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The inspection took place on 7 and 8 January 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office.

Peninsula Care Devon provides a personal care service to people living in their own home. On the day of the inspection 53 people were supported by Peninsula Care Devon with their personal care needs.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

On the day of the inspection staff within the office were relaxed, there was a calm and friendly atmosphere. Everybody had a clear role within the service. Information we requested was supplied promptly, records were clear and easy to follow.

People spoke well of the care and support they received, comments included, “The carers are first class in every way and thoroughly deserve that level of praise”, “You have to be caring to do the job they do and they all are; they’re wonderful” and “The carers are all so kind, I look forward to them coming to see me, I’m looked after really well”. Care records were personalised and gave people control over all aspects of their lives. People’s preferences were identified and respected. Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs. People were involved in reviewing their needs and expressed how they would like to be supported and by whom.

People were supported by staff who put them at the heart of their work. Staff showed a kind and compassionate attitude towards people. Relationships had been developed and staff had an appreciation of how to respect people’s individual needs around their privacy and dignity.

People’s risks were managed well. People were promoted to live full and active lives. People were supported to have as much control and independence as possible.

People had their medicines managed safely. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs and district nurses.

People told us they felt safe. Comments included, “I absolutely feel safe, they notice when things are wrong, sometimes before I do and that makes me feel safe” and “I do feel safe, I welcome them coming because then I know I’m getting the help I need to be safe” and “It’s nice to have people coming to see me and when they leave, they make sure everything is all locked up and that I’m safe”. Staff had undertaken training on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

People were supported by staff who had limited knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). The service did not currently support anybody who required an assessment under the MCA. The registered manager confirmed all staff would receive MCA training as a matter of importance.

People were supported by staff who had received a thorough induction programme and on-going training to develop their knowledge and skills.

People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.

The service had a policy and procedure in place for dealing with any concerns or complaints. There had been no written complaints received by the service in the last twelve months.

Staff described the management to be supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs. Comments included, “I’m definitely motivated, […] thinks the world of us”, “[…] is always willing to invest in his staff, progress staff and support them to achieve” and “I love my job, I absolutely love it. It is challenging but amazing”.

There were quality assurance systems in place to drive continuous improvement within the service. Audits were carried out and where shortfalls in the service had been highlighted, action had been taken to resolve the issues and help ensure quality of care was not compromised.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was safe. Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of how to recognise and report any signs of abuse, and the service acted appropriately to protect people.

People’s medicines were managed consistently and safely by staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was effective. People received care and support that met their needs and reflected their individual choices and preferences.

People were supported by staff who had the right competencies, knowledge and skills relevant to their role.

People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was caring. People were supported by staff that promoted independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

People were supported by staff who showed kindness and compassion towards them.

People were supported by staff who enabled them to express their views and be actively involved in decisions about their care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was responsive. Care records were personalised and so met people’s individual needs. Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.

People were supported to have as much control and independence as possible.

The service had a complaints policy in place. Concerns raised were listened too and action had been taken to respond to them promptly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 March 2016

The service was well-led. There was an open culture. The management team were approachable and defined by a clear structure.

Staff were motivated and inspired to develop and provide quality care.

People and staff were enabled to make suggestions about what mattered to them. Communication was encouraged.