You are here

Annies Homecare Services Ltd Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

This inspection took place on 12 June 2018 and was announced giving 48 hours' notice to ensure the registered manager was available.

At the last inspection on 16 November 2017, we found that the provider was in breach of Regulation 9 (Person centred care), Regulation 10 (Dignity and respect), Regulation 11 (Consent), Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment), Regulation 17 (Good governance), Regulation 18 (staffing) and Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons). We rated the service as ‘Requires improvement’ in safe, effective, caring, responsive and ‘Inadequate’ in well led with an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’.

Following the last inspection, we met with the provider on 15 December 2017 to discuss our findings and asked them to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve all the key questions to at least ‘Good’.

We found significant improvements had been made to the service when we returned on 12 June 2018 and the service was no longer in breach of the Regulations. We have judged their rating to be 'Good'.

Annies Homecare Services is a domiciliary care service and is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection, there were 43 people using the service and 21 care staff supporting them.

There was 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.

Systems to protect and keep people safe had been improved through the review and implementation of risk assessments, medicine administration and quality assurance processes. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm.

The service had improved the way in which they recruited staff and they had sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines safely as prescribed and the records had been improved to make the management and administration more effective. Staff had an understanding of how to minimise the risk of infection, they had been trained, and had access to personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons.

People’s care needs had been assessed and their care plans reviewed as their needs changed. Staff had received all necessary training and supervision and they knew how to support people effectively. People were supported with a healthy diet and sufficient fluids. Staff ensured people’s healthcare needs were met. The service worked well in partnership with other professionals to ensure that people received the health care support they needed.

The service worked in line with other legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure that people had as much choice and control over their lives as possible. The service had carried out appropriate assessments in line with legislation.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. Their independence was encouraged as much as possible while minimising any risks to help keep them safe. People felt staff gave them the time they needed and respected their dignity and privacy.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the service. They told us they were kept involved in decision-making and had good contact with the management through visits and calls.

People received care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans had been improved as they were now written in a personalised, detailed and respectful way. There was a good complaints procedure and people had confidence that any complaints would be dealt with quickly.

Action had been taken to manage the oversight of the service and the improvements made meant it was well led and managed. People knew who the registered manager was, and had confidence in them. Staff told us that improvements had been made as

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and recorded.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines and records were checked to ensure these were administered as prescribed.

The service had effective infection control measures in place and staff had access to protective clothing.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service was effective.

People were fully involved in the assessment process and consented to their care.

Staff had received training, support and supervision to make them effective in their role.

Where people were supported to eat and drink, they had sufficient to meet their needs.

The service worked well with other professionals and provided people with effective healthcare support.

Mental Capacity Act 2005 assessments had been carried out where required.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Their privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted.

People and their families were fully involved in making decisions about their care arrangements.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that reflected their changing needs. Staff were flexible and responsive.

Care plans contained relevant information about people’s requirements and circumstances.

There was an effective complaints system in place and people were confident their concerns were dealt with swiftly.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 July 2018

The service was well led.

The provider had learnt from feedback and taken action to make improvements.

The leadership and management was effective with greater clarity of management roles and responsibilities.

Staff were supported and involved in the development of the service.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place and people’s personal information was protected.