You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

This inspection took place on 21 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides domiciliary care and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office.

Divine Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to people living in their own homes. The office is based in the city of Leicester and the service currently provides care and support to people living in Leicester. At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service.

Divine Homecare Limited had a registered manager in post. 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 using the service. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and knew what to do if they had concerns about the well being of any of the people using the service.

Staff understood risk and how they should respond to reduce this to promote people's safety and welfare. However when we looked at people's care records they did not include any recorded risk assessments to manage risks to the person's health and well being or environment. The provider told us that they would ensure risk assessments were recorded with care plans.

People said they thought staff were well-trained and knew how to support them effectively. Care staff had a thorough induction and on-going training to keep their skills up to date. Staff were safely recruited to help ensure they were suitable to work with people who used the service. Staff received support through meetings and formal and informal supervision.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and sought consent from people before providing care. Further action was needed to ensure staff fully understood the MCA and their responsibilities in supporting people to make decisions and choices.

People told us that care staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People had consistent, reliable carers. This enabled people to get to know the staff who supported them.

People were directly involved in the development of their care and encouraged to be independent and make choices about how they wanted their support provided.

Staff provided a personalised service that was responsive to people's needs. However the service had not developed care plans for the people who used the service. The registered manager told us that information was always provided verbally to care staff before they began to support a person. However, due to lack of appropriate records, we could not be confident that people’s care had been designed to achieve their preferences and ensure their needs were met. The registered manager said they would address this.

People and their relatives knew how to complain, however no complaints had been received by the registered provider at the time of our inspection.

There were regular opportunities for staff to provide feedback about people's care through attending team meetings.

People told us the registered manager and registered provider often visited them and spoke to them in person to check on their well being and monitor their care and support. However the provider did not have an effective or robust quality assurance programme in place to check people received good care. The provider told us they were in the process of introducing systems to assess and monitor the quality of care in the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. Care staff had an understanding of safeguarding adults including how to report concerns.

Staff understood and managed risks to people's safety and welfare. However, the provider had not recorded risks to people using the service.

People were cared for by reliable and appropriately recruited staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was effective.

People were cared for by skilled and competent staff. Records confirmed staff training was up to date. Staff said they were well supported to carry out their role.

Staff used the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and obtained consent and respected people's choices and decisions before providing care.

Staff understood people's health needs and supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were happy with the care they received from the service.

People were cared for by caring staff who knew their needs well.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed when they first started to use the service but there were no written care plans to detail the support people required.

Staff provided personalised care and support and people told us that staff met their needs.

People knew how to make complaints if they needed to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

People were satisfied with how the service was managed.

The provider did not have an effective or robust quality assurance programme in place to check people received good care.

There was no evidence of consultation with people who used the service to promote learning or continuous improvement of the service.