You are here

Archived: Eyam Domiciliary Service Limited 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 23 April 2016

This inspection took place on 3 February 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to visit the office, talk to staff and review records. The inspection team included one inspector.

Eyam Domiciliary Service Limited provides personal care and support to people who live in their homes in and around the Hope Valley area of Derbyshire. At the time of this inspection 68 people were supported by the service.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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.

People told us they felt safe with the care provided and felt confident in the staff that supported them. Any risks to people’s health or risks in their homes were identified and assessed in ways that involved people’s views. Contingency plans were also in place to manage any risks to the delivery of the service. Staff recruitment and deployment was managed safely and the manager took action during our inspection to complete checks that had previously been omitted that verified staff were in good enough health to complete their work. Procedures were followed to ensure people receiving medicines were supported to do so safely.

During our inspection the manager made improvements to the way consent for people’s care was recorded. They also updated the provider’s policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to clarify the role of the service and the role of care workers in making assessments of people’s capacity when needed. People received support from staff with the skills and knowledge to meet their needs, including how to support people with their nutrition and hydration needs. People were supported to access other healthcare provision when required.

People were cared for by staff that were cheerful, kind and caring. People were supported to be independent and staff promoted their dignity and privacy. People were involved in planning their care and support and staff took time to build genuine relationships with the people they supported.

People’s views were valued by the service and led to changes and improvements. People were supported to raise any worries or concerns, and where people had done so these had been resolved. People received personalised and responsive care and their views and preferences were central to the care and support provided.

The service promoted an open and inclusive culture. Senior staff were accessible to support staff and were well known by people using the service. Arrangements to check on the quality and safety of people’s care were regularly completed by senior staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 April 2016

The service was safe.

People received care that was safe and risks were identified and assessed. Staff followed guidelines to ensure medicines were managed safely. Recruitment processes ensured staff employed were suitable to work with people using the service. Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 April 2016

The service was effective.

Improvements were made to the provider�s Mental Capacity Act policy and to how people�s consent to care was recorded. Staff had the right skills and knowledge for their role and staff received support to develop and learn new skills. People�s needs in relation to their health and nutrition had been met.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 April 2016

The service was caring.

People felt staff were cheerful, kind and caring. The principles of dignity, respect and independence were understood and embraced by staff. People identified what care and support they required and their views and decisions were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care, responsive to their needs and were involved in planning and reviewing what support they needed. The views of people were central to how the quality of care was defined and evaluated. Any concerns were managed with an open and transparent style and resolved.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 April 2016

The service was well-led.

The management and culture of the service was inclusive, open and empowering. Leadership was focused on providing good quality care as defined by people using the service. Processes were effective in checking that the care provided met with those standards.