Support at Home, Beehive Care

Updated 19 June 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The Expert by Experience’s area of expertise was with older people, including people living with dementia.

Service and service type:

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service 48 hours ‘notice of the inspection visit so that the registered manager could arrange for us to meet with people who received care. We also wanted to arrange for staff who supported people to be available, so we could talk with them.

Inspection site visit activity started on 21 May 2019 and ended on 24 May 2019. We visited the office location on 21 May to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) in June 2018, but had not been sent a request by us to complete a PIR since. The PIR is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection:

On the first day of inspection, we spoke with the registered manager, the care co-ordinator and senior carer and a team leader and carer. We reviewed a range of records. These included two care records, three staff files and records relating to the management of the service. On the second day of inspection, we visited and spoke with two people and a relative in their homes. We observed a carer during these home visits and how they supported people. We looked at the care records and daily notes completed by care staff at people’s homes. On the third day, we conducted telephone interviews with four people who used the service and spoke with four relatives.

Updated 19 June 2019

About the service:

Abbeyfield Ferring Society is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care for people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, 20 people were receiving personal care support from the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe with staff who supported them. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and were managed safely by staff. People said staff arrived on time and they were informed in advance of which carers would be supporting them. Staff supported people to take their medicines or reminded them when they were due. People were protected from the risk of infection. Staff wore disposable aprons and gloves when providing people with personal care.

People’s needs were assessed to see whether their needs could be met, and in relation to staff availability, before they used the service. Staff completed a range of training to undertake their roles and responsibilities and had regular supervision meetings with their line managers. Where people required support in the preparation of meals, staff had been trained to do this safely. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services and staff supported people to attend appointments when needed. 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 service supported this practice.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People and their relatives were encouraged to make decisions about their care. People’s diverse needs were catered for and they were treated with dignity and respect.

Care was personalised to meet people’s needs. Care plans provided detailed information and guidance for staff on people’s care and support needs, likes and dislikes, and the way they wanted to receive personal care. Information could be provided to people in an accessible format. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s policy.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the service. One person told us, “They are nice, friendly girls [staff]. They always come in with a smile”. Their feedback was sought through surveys they received from the provider. Staff enjoyed working for Abbeyfield Ferring Society and felt supported by management. A system of quality audits were used to monitor and measure the service and any areas for improvement were actioned. Links had been developed with other organisations to develop community involvement.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection, this service was rated as Good (published in September 2016).

Why we inspected:

This inspection took place in line with CQC scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up:

We will review the service in line with our methodology for ‘Good’ services.

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