You are here

Home Instead Senior Care Good

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead Senior Care on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Home Instead Senior Care, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 27 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Home Instead is a Domiciliary Care Agency providing personal care to 15 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff provided exceptionally kind and compassionate care to people. There was a clear person centred culture in place revolving around the needs of people who used the service. Without exception people provided positive feedback about the nature and personalities of the staff who supported them. Staff were dedicated in their approach and we saw instances of them going the extra mile to ensure people were safe and/or comfortable.

People had strong influence in who supported them. For example, people were matched with staff based on their shared interests and how they got along. People regularly provided feedback on individual staff members to ensure they continued to be a good match for them.

People said they felt safe using the service. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and mitigated. Medicines were managed in a safe and proper way and people received their medicines as prescribed.

There were enough staff to ensure people received prompt care and support. Safe recruitment procedures were operated. Staff received a range of training and support relevant to their role. This included a strong focus on dementia care to equip staff with the skills to care with people living with dementia.

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

People’s needs were assessed and clear and very detailed plans of care put in place for staff to follow. These were exceptionally person centred and demonstrated the service had taken the time to understand all aspects of people’s care and support needs. The service liaised with professionals where required such as over people’s nutritional and health needs.

There was a strong focus on ensuring people’s social care needs were met. This was achieved through good care planning, providing companionship and working with the local community to provide social opportunities for people.

A system was in place to log, investigate and respond to complaints and concerns in a prompt manner. People were encouraged to provide feedback about the service.

There was an open and person centred culture within the service with the management team dedicated to ensuring people received high quality care and support. The service was committed to continuous improvement and had a plan in place to ensure they continued to improve.

A range of audits and checks were undertaken to assess, monitor and improve the service. People’s feedback was regularly sought , listened to and used to improve the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was good (published 23 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 28 October 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Home Instead Senior Care on 28 October and 2, 3 and 4 November 2016. We gave the provider 48 hours notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager can be available.

This was the first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission in November 2014.

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides care services to people in their own homes. When we visited the office the registered manager told us 12 people were receiving a personal care service. The agency provides a service to adults, older people, people living with dementia, people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, sensory impairment and people with mental health needs.

The registered manager left the service in July 2016. The nominated individual for the Company has taken over as manager of the service and has submitted an application to register as the manager. 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.

Everyone we spoke with was unanimous in their praise of the staff who were described as exceptionally kind, caring and compassionate. People and relatives told us they had regular care staff who always arrived at the agreed time and stayed the full length of the call. They said staff were patient and never rushed allowing people to do things at their own pace. Care staff were introduced to new clients by the manager who shadowed them on their calls until the staff member felt confident to work alone.

Health and social care professionals we spoke with said they thought the service was very good. They described the care as very person-centred and said staff reported any issues promptly and always acted on advice they had given. They said communication between all staff was very good.

Our discussions with staff showed they knew people well. We found recruitment processes were robust and staff told us the induction and shadowing they received was comprehensive and prepared them for their roles. We saw staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing. There had been one safeguarding incident which had been reported and dealt with appropriately.

Medicines management was safe which helped ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

People’s care records provided detailed information about their needs and focussed on what people could do for themselves as well as the support they required from staff. Risk assessments showed any identified risks had been assessed and mitigated. We saw people had been involved in the care planning process and reviews. There was full information about people’s lives which included important relationships, life history and any interests, likes and dislikes. People’s nutritional needs were met.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. We saw complaints received had been dealt with appropriately.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager had completed training and knew the procedures to follow.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the manager and the way the service was run. They told us communication was excellent and said the manager was committed to continually improving the service to make it the best it could be for the people who used it. The manager was described as inspirational and provided strong and supportive leadership. Relatives and staff all said they had an