You are here

Archived: Wessex Regional Care Domiciliary Service Good

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

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 March 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was announced and was undertaken on the 12 and 15 June 2014. We gave the provider three days’ notice prior to the inspection. The service is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure they were in. On our last inspection on 25 July 2013 no concerns were noted.

Wessex Regional Care Domiciliary Service is a provider of domiciliary and supported living services. They support people to live independently in their own home or with their families. Their supported living services are provided in five houses where people share tenancy with other people who live there. They provide personal care and help to develop independence for 36 people who have a range of learning disabilities.

There is a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

People told us they felt safe with the staff supporting them and they had no concerns about their safety. The provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures were known to staff and they told us what they would do if they suspected abuse was occurring. There were robust recruitment processes in place which made sure staff were suitable to work with people who could be at risk. People and staff told us there were enough staff available to deliver care.

Each person had an individual care plan which was based on need areas identified by an assessment. This guided staff on how people wished to be supported and the tasks that were required to be done to support the person. These were reviewed and updated regularly and included people‘s views where possible. Mental capacity assessments were carried out where people may not have the capacity to make certain decisions. In some cases meetings were held to agree what decisions should be made to reflect the person’s best interest.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff who showed a caring attitude towards people. Each person had an allocated key worker. (A key worker is a member of staff who is responsible for working with certain people and building a working relationship with them). We saw people enjoying good rapport with the staff in their homes.

Staff received training to help them meet people’s needs. When staff began working for the service they completed an induction course. They then worked alongside experienced members of staff before they could work on their own with people. Staff received regular supervisions which included monitoring of their performance. Staff were supported to develop their skills by attending additional training events. People told us staff knew how to support them and they understood what needed to be done.

People told us they received enough staff support to do what they wanted to do. Within the supported living services staff were available at times when people wished to have support for activities and carrying out care when required. Staff rotas showed consistent staffing with people receiving care form a core group of carers who were familiar to them.

People told us staff responded to their needs and helped them to make changes to their care plans where required. They also told us they were able to change activities when they wished to. Staff confirmed they always asked people what they wanted to do when supporting them with activities. The provider responded to people’s changing needs when required.

The manager and provider carried out a number of audits and checks to monitor the quality of the service they delivered. This included a range of checks on people’s records, care plans and reviews of comments and complaints. People were encouraged to give feedback to the provider through questionnaires, comments and conversations. People told us they had been listened to and had noticed changes following them raising concerns.

A commissioner told us they had found staff to be consistently helpful, friendly and professional. They felt staff had the best interests at heart of people and made sure they were at the centre of the care they provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 March 2015

The service was safe. People told us they were supported by staff who made them feel safe. Robust recruitment processes made sure only suitable staff with the right skills and knowledge were employed.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and harm. Staff demonstrated they could apply the training they received in how to recognise and report abuse.

Risk assessments were in place to help keep people safe. Where risks had been identified there was information for staff on the type of risk and how they could reduce that risk.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 March 2015

The service was effective. People told us they got on well with staff and they knew how to support them. Care plans reflected the assessed needs of people who had contributed to writing them.

Staff received appropriate training to know and understand the care needs of people they supported. Supervisions were held regularly between staff and their line manager.

People received appropriate support to meet their healthcare needs. They were able to access local GPs.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 March 2015

The service was caring. People told us they were well cared for and the staff were very helpful and understanding. Staff were respectful towards people and were aware of the need to maintain people’s dignity and privacy.

People felt they had been listened to when making comments to staff and managers. They told us they were involved in decisions about their care.

People made choices about their day to day activities and planned these with staff. Some people told us they were able to go out independently and staff helped them to develop these skills.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 March 2015

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed when they first received support. The assessments were regularly reviewed and changes were made when people’s needs changed.

People received care and support that was personalised and responsive to their individual needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly and changes made in agreement with the person.

People felt their comments and complaints were listened to and they received feedback from the provider on what had been done. The provider used a number of processes to gather information on how to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 March 2015

The service was well led. People and staff told us about the person-centred culture in the service. Staff understood the service philosophy and how to involve people in decisions about their care.

Senior staff within the provider organisation supported individuals on a regular basis. They were aware of the needs of people and had a personal knowledge of the preference of individuals. People and staff told us they enjoyed seeing this approach to care.

The provider and manager carried out regular quality checks of the service. Audits were undertaken to make sure the service was meeting regulations and standards.