You are here

Independence Homes Domiciliary Care Agency Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 May 2019

About the service: Independence Homes Domiciliary Care Agency (Independence Homes) provides support for adults with epilepsy and other neurological conditions. Some people may also have physical and learning disabilities or mental health needs. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing support within the regulated activity of personal care to 91 people across nine ‘supported living’ settings. Support ranged from a few hours per day to 24-hour care. CQC does not regulate the premises used for supported living; this inspection only looked at people’s personal care and support.

People’s experience of using this service:

Whilst there were no significant concerns raised about the services provided at eight of the supported living settings, the people living at Woodland Court were not receiving appropriate care and support. Ongoing failure to address the issues at Woodland Court have therefore impacted on the service as a whole.

The lack of skilled and experienced staff deployed at Woodland Court placed people at risk of harm. Staff were unable to meet people’s complex needs and this had a significant impact on people’s physical and emotional well-being.

People and their representatives were angry that their views were not being listened to and their experience was further impacted by the low staff morale. Relationships with other health and social care professionals had broken down as practitioners expressed frustration at the lack of coordination of people’s care.

Despite receiving continuous feedback about the decline of quality at Woodland Court, the provider had failed to have effective oversight and monitoring of the service.

Rating at last inspection: Outstanding (Published September 2017). The rating has therefore dropped since the last inspection.

Why we inspected: This inspection was carried out in response to multiple concerns that we had received regarding the service being provided at Woodland Court. These concerns were raised by a range of stakeholders and indicated significant issues about the way Woodland Court was being staffed and managed.

Enforcement: Please see the ‘action we have told the provider to take’ section towards the end of the report.

Follow up: We will be seeking an action plan from the provider and continuing to monitor the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Outstanding

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was very effective.

Staff were provided with continuous training, support and supervision to ensure they delivered the very best care.

Staff consistently applied their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, to support people to make choices and live their lives as they wished.

Staff used creative and innovative ways to support people with their dietary needs which both improved their physical health and respected their cultural preferences.

The service had excellent systems in place to ensure that staff worked effectively together as a team to meet people’s holistic needs. The medical team provided a bespoke service that bridged the gap between support staff and the health profession.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was caring.

People had good relationships with the staff that supported them. People were clearly relaxed with staff and felt happy and confident in their company.

Staff respected people’s privacy and took appropriate steps to ensure their dignity was upheld.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s choices and advocated strongly on their behalf.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People received a personalised service that was planned proactively in partnership with them.

People’s care was kept under continual review and the service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences.

Overall, people were confident about expressing their views to staff. Relatives expressed mixed views about the way their concerns had been dealt with. Feedback indicated that complaint handling had recently become more open and responsive.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 May 2019

The service was not always well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.