Archived: Kernow Home Care Limited

Kernow Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care and support to people livening in their own homes. The service normally provides short visits at key times of the day to help people to get up, go to bed and to prepare meals.

At the time of our inspection the service was supporting approximately 30 older people. 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

People were comfortable with their support staff who they praised for the compassion and care with which they provided support. People comments included, “I must say the carers are very good”, “I think I am spoilt really. They are good” and “Kernow Home Care provide excellent care, I have no complaints.” Records showed people were normally cared for by staff who visited regularly. Staff normally arrived on time for each visit and stayed for the full duration. When care workers were running late they called people to let them know when they would arrived.

Staff understood their role in ensuring people safety and records showed the service manager had appropriately reported safety concerns to the local authority.

The service used an electronic system to plan care visit and ensure that no visit was missed. This system worked well and no one who used the service, or any staff could recall an occasion when a visit had been missed.

Staff had the skills necessary to meet people support needs and their training was regular updated. Staff new to the care sector completed training in line with the requirements of the care certificate.

People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives. 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 were in control of how their care was provided and staff acted to ensure people’s privacy was valued and respected.

Care plans contained enough guidance for staff to enable them to meet peoples individual needs. Risk assessments were completed during the initial care visits and staff were provided with information on how to manage these risks and what support was to be provided during each visit.

The registered manager provided effective leadership to the well-motivated staff team. Staff were proud of the person centred support the service provided and told us, “They are definitely the best company I have worked for” and “The best thing is walking away at the end of the shift and knowing you have done a good deed for people and helped them stay at home.”

There were systems in place for gathering feedback from people who used this service and appropriate procedures in place to ensure any complaints received were investigated and resolved. A survey had been recently completed and people’s feedback had been constantly positive.

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

Rating at the last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good. (Report published 1 August 2017)

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.

The service provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes In and around Penzance and St Just in the far west of Cornwall. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and with support to prepare meals.

People said they felt safe while receiving support and relatives told us people were safe. Staff understood local safeguarding procedures and how to recognise signs of potential abuse. They told us, “People are as safe as we can make them” and “Everybody seems safe”.

People’s care plans provided staff with sufficient detailed guidance to enable them to meet their care needs. These document had been reviewed and updated and included risk assessments and information for staff on how to protect people from identified areas of risk.

The service was short staffed. The registered manager recognised this issue and was in the process of actively recruiting additional staff members. In addition, the service was declining new care packages at the time of our inspection. Following the inspection the registered manger took action to ensure that the available staff team were able to meet people’s needs. People were aware of the staffing issues but reported this had not impacted on the quality of support they received. One person told us, “They are jolly good. They are short staffed but my golly they are cheerful and all very willing.” Staff commented, “Staffing is tight but we are getting it covered” and “It is not impacting on the people.” We found that were sufficient staff available to provide all of the service’s planned visits but this involved managers providing significant numbers of care visits.

Staff rotas were well organised and people normally received support from consistent small groups of care staff who they knew well. People told us, “They always turn up” and record showed that the service had only missed two care visit so far in 2017. The service used a mobile phone based application to share information about planned care visits with staff who told us, “We get the rota every Friday via e mail and on the App which is brilliant. It has a list of all the visits you have to do each day”.

Rotas included travel time between consecutive care visits and the service call monitoring data showed that people routinely received care visits on time and for the full duration. People told us, “They are seldom late”, “Very good for time, bit late for traffic occasionally but that is not their fault”, “They don’t rush me” and “It is mostly the same one so we have gotten used to each other.”

Recruitment procedures were safe and all necessary checks had been completed before new staff provided support. There were induction training procedures in place for new members of staff and all staff new to the care sector completed the care certificate. The registered manager was in the process of reviewing and updating the service’s training policies and had recently appointed a training lead to ensure staff training needs were managed. As part of this process analysis of the training needs had been completed and an action plan developed to ensure these needs were met. Staff had noticed improvements in the service’s training systems and told us, “The training is much better” and “There is a plan to improve the training.”

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005(MCA). Management and staff understood how to ensure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

People told us they got on well with their care staff who were kind and attentive. People comments included, “They are awfully good, they really are” and “They have always been helpful and courteous. They all seem to have kind hearts”. Staff told us they knew people well and had time during care visits to chat with people to gain a better understanding of their individual needs. Staff said, “All my regulars I know really well. It is important to talk to people so you know how they are” and “We are getting set rounds so it is stable and you can build relationships. People like the consistency”.

We observed people were involved in making decision an choices about how care was provided during each visits. People told us staff respected their decision and staff said, “I don’t force anyone to do anything but I will try to encourage them. It is always [the Person’s] choice, don’t assume they will have the same as last time.” Where people declined planned care this had been document in care records, reported to office staff and shared with health professionals were appropriate.

People and their relatives said the service was well organised and told us, “It is very good indeed, especially since the new manager has been there. Things have picked up a lot. I think they have made a difference” and “I would give them eight or nine out of ten. They are very good”.

There was a clear well understood management structure in place and staff told us the service on call systems worked well. Staff reported that the registered manager had made a number of improvements within the service and told us, “The new manager is lovely, they have brought a lot of good things to the company” and “The manager is firm but fair. They have made some changes for the better. It is more structured and more organised as he is office bound”.

There were systems in place to gather regular feedback from people using the service and processes available to ensure any complaint received were investigated and resolved. Quality assurance processes were effective and the service policy documents had been recently updated.