You are here

Advanced Home Care Limited Good Also known as Advanced Home Care

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The inspection of the service took place between 20 June 2018 and 19 July 2018 and was unannounced. During the inspection we visited the offices to speak with management and review records, carried out visits to people in their own homes and spoke with people, their relatives and staff over the telephone.

The service is managed from offices in Kirkham, Lancashire. Services are provided to support people to live independently in the community. At the time of our inspection, 147 people used the service.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing.

Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

The service had systems to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse. Staff had received training to safeguard people and were aware of how to report any concerns.

The service had systems to ensure the safe and proper management of medicines. Staff received training and their competency was assessed before they provided people with support with their medicines.

Robust recruitment processes ensured only suitable candidates were employed by the service. Staff received a comprehensive induction, ongoing training and support in order for them to provide effective care and support to people who used the service.

Staff assessed risks to people and measures were put in place to lessen risks. Accidents and incidents were reported and recorded. These were analysed by the registered manager so lessens could be learned and the risk of repeat occurrences reduced.

No one we spoke with raised any concerns about staffing. We saw the service used an electronic system to organise staff rotas. However, some people we spoke with and staff, told us some changes to rotas were not always communicated effectively. The registered manager confirmed they would address this issue following the inspection.

We found people were supported with nutrition and hydration. Staff carried out thorough assessments to ensure the service could meet the needs of people. We saw written plans of care were reviewed regularly to ensure they met people’s current needs.

People we spoke with and their relatives gave us consistently positive feedback about how the service was delivered and the approach of staff. We observed a good rapport between staff and people they supported. Staff had a good understanding of protecting people’s rights and treated each person as a unique individual.

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 told us they were encouraged to raise any concerns or complaints and felt they would be taken seriously. The service had a complaints policy and we saw complaints had been investigated and responded to appropriately.

We found staff and management were open and honest and spoke of a positive culture within the service. Everyone we spoke with told us there had been improvements to the service since our last inspection. The registered manager was keen to continue to drive improvements.

We saw the registered manager used a range of methods to assess, monitor and improve the service. Regular audits and checks were carried out. Feedback was sought from people who used the service, their relatives and staff. This was used to make improvements in how the service was delivered.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to protect people against the risk of abuse. Staff had received training to keep people safe.

The service operated systems to ensure the safe and proper management of medicines.

Staffing levels were adequate to ensure people received the care and support they needed. However, changes to rotas were not always well communicated.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was effective.

People received care and support from staff who had been trained and were well supported.

The service operated in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People had choice and control about the service they received.

People�s nutritional, hydration and ongoing health needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was caring.

People received a service from staff who knew them well and treated them with respect and dignity.

We received consistently positive feedback about the approach of staff.

People and, where appropriate, others acting on their behalf were involved in choosing how the service was delivered for them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Thorough assessments of people�s needs and their preferences were used to ensure people�s needs were met.

Reviews of care took place regularly to ensure the service delivered was reflective of people�s current circumstances.

The provider had a complaints policy, which enabled any concerns or complaints to be investigated and addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 August 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager used a range of methods to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.

Staff and management all told us this was a good service to work for and they had a good staff team who worked well together.

Feedback was gained from people who used the service, their relatives and staff in order to drive improvements.