You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 July 2018

This announced inspection took place on 21 June 2018. This service is a domiciliary care agency and provides care and support to adults living in their own houses and flats. Not everyone using Extra Help Care Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 14 people were provided with ‘personal care’ by Extra Help Care Limited.

The service had a registered manager at the time of our visit. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risks to people safety were not always assessed or regularly reviewed. Staff supported some people to take medicines, but further information was needed to ensure they had sufficient information about people’s medicines. People were supported by a sufficient amount of staff to keep them safe; however, improvements were required to ensure people knew which staff would be visiting them.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who were aware of how to respond if they suspected abuse. Staff were recruited safely. People were supported by staff who understood their responsibilities for maintaining cleanliness and hygiene and to report accidents and incidents.

Staff had sufficient skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and staff sought medical attention if people needed it. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and knew people’s likes and dislikes. Staff were provided with a sufficient amount of time on care calls to be able to provide compassionate care. People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff met people’s needs and provided support in line with their wishes and preferences. People had an assessment of their needs before they started using the service and were involved in planning and reviewing their care. The level of detail in people’s support plans was variable and the provider told us of their plans to address this.

People were provided with information about how to make a complaint about the service and their complaints and concerns were responded to. The registered manager provided opportunities for people to provide feedback on the service they received.

People knew who the registered manager was and staff told us the registered manager was accessible and provided clear leadership. The management team monitored the quality of the service provided by carrying out checks. We saw these were effective in identifying and addressing areas of improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 July 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

Risks to people safety were not always assessed or regularly reviewed.

Further information was needed to ensure staff had sufficient information about people’s medicines.

People were supported by a sufficient amount of staff to keep them safe; however, improvements were required to ensure people knew which staff would be visiting them. Staff were recruited safely.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who were aware of how to respond if they suspected abuse.

Staff who understood their responsibilities for maintaining cleanliness and hygiene, and to report accidents and incidents supported people.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 July 2018

The service was effective.

People had an assessment of their needs before they started using the service.

Staff had sufficient skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and staff sought medical attention if people needed it.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and knew people’s likes and dislikes.

Staff were provided with a sufficient amount of time on care calls to be able to provide compassionate care.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff met people’s needs and provided support in line with their wishes and preferences.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

The level of detail in people’s support plans was variable and the provider told us of their plans to address this.

People were provided with information about how to make a complaint about the service and their complaints and concerns were responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 July 2018

The service was well led.

People knew who the registered manager was and staff told us the registered manager was accessible and provided clear leadership.

The registered manager provided opportunities for people to provide feedback on the service they received.

The management team monitored the quality of the service provided by carrying out checks. We saw these were effective in identifying and addressing areas of improvement.