We carried out a review of the data available to us about Beloved Homecare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Beloved Homecare, you can give feedback on this service.
Beloved Homecare is a domiciliary care service. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes.
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
Since our last inspection, the service had introduced several creative and innovative ways to enhance people’s safety, particularly regarding risk management. Enabling people to take positive risks was something the service did extremely well, meaning people could retain as much independence as possible.
Staff had gone ‘above and beyond’ what was expected from their roles to ensure people received outstanding care and support. People who used the service and their relatives were at the heart of how the service was run, and involvement in the care they received was a high priority to the management and staff team.
The service was highly passionate about ensuring people received high quality, person centred care that was based around their likes, dislikes, hobbies and interests. Feedback from relatives whose loved ones had previously used the services of Beloved Homecare as they approached the end of their life, was very positive.
The management and leadership of the service was also described as being outstanding. Community links within the local area and partnership working with other organisations was excellent. The registered manager and staff team were committed to achieving positive outcomes for people. Staff morale and a positive culture amongst the staff team was also very apparent. The service had won awards both nationally and in the local area, where their contribution to the care sector had been recognised and valued.
People received their medication safely and were encouraged do this themselves if they were able. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough available to ensure people received the care and support they required. Staff displayed a thorough understanding regarding safeguarding procedures, with both people and relatives telling us they felt the service was very safe to use.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Outstanding (published 28 March 2018).
Why we inspected
This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the provider’s office location.
The pilot inspection considered the key questions of Safe and Well-led and has provided an updated rating for those key questions. Only parts of the Effective, Caring and Responsive key questions were considered and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.
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.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Heritage Healthcare - Trafford receives 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 in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. The registered manager, management team and office staff were all motivated and clearly passionate about making a difference to people's lives. This enthusiasm was also shared with care staff we spoke with, who recognised they were ambassadors for the company and acted accordingly.
The values of honesty, excellence, approachability, respectfulness and teamwork (H.E.A.R.T.) were at the centre of the company’s ethos and they strived to appoint and retain staff who were able to effectively demonstrate each of these values.
People and their relatives provided extremely positive feedback that demonstrated the service was exceptionally caring, in both approach and practice. Words used to describe staff included ‘wonderful’, ‘amazing’, ‘dedicated’, ‘passionate’ and ‘professional’.
People were empowered, being involved in making decisions about their lives. People's care and support was planned proactively in partnership with them. There was an emphasis on continuous improvement. The views of people using the service were at the core of quality monitoring and helped shape service delivery.
The service was committed at putting the person at the centre of everything they did. People received personalised care and support based on their assessed needs. People and others that mattered to them had been involved in identifying these needs and how these should be met.
The company went to great lengths in ensuring that people and carers were well matched, shared the same interests in life or had similar personality traits. People were given ‘a new lease of life’. Staff were passionate about the role they played in enhancing people’s social lives.
People using the service were introduced to meaningful activities and were given the opportunity to use technology, with assistance. People were given encouragement and support to reach their full potential and live life to the full, assisted by passionate staff responsive to their needs.
People consistently told us they were supported by staff members who had excellent caring skills and an in depth knowledge of their needs. People told us that staff were well trained, were competent in their work and attentive to their needs and that staff went over and above their duties to make sure they were well looked after. People felt safe and comfortable with the level of skill and expertise demonstrated by staff.
People's care was planned and delivered to maintain their health and well-being. The service was proactive in ensuring that any changes to support were communicated to them immediately so that people received care effective to their needs.
The service regarded people as an extended family and this was apparent in the little extras that the company provided. People appreciated the caring nature displayed by the company and its staff and we saw the positive impact this care had on people’s lives.
Staff showed empathy and had an enabling attitude that encouraged and motivated people to challenge themselves. Care workers were committed to putting people at the centre of the care they received and included people in the decision making process. Care workers showed genuine interest in people’s lives and knew people well, their preferred routines and other family members who were important to them.
Staff understood and had a good working knowledge of the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. All staff demonstrated a commitment to promoting the rights and choices of people who used the service and ensured people's human and legal rights were respected. We saw that the provider always made best interest decisions in accordance with legislation and people's wishes.
Management had a genuinely open culture and viewed all safety concerns raised of value, and integral to learning and improvement. There were policies and procedures in place protecting people from the risk of service failure due to foreseeable emergencies so that their care could continue.
Management proactively engaged with people, their relatives or representatives and other professionals to assess and minimise risks. All risk assessments were reviewed throughout the delivery of the service to make sure they continued to be relevant and suitable to meet people's needs.
People were confident that staff had the knowledge to recognise and report any actual or suspected abuse and staff confirmed the action they would take to protect people if they had any suspicion of abuse. Staff were knowledgeable and confident as to when to raise concerns.
Staff had been trained to administer medicines to people safely and regular competency assessments ensured their continued ability to administer people's medicines safely.
Mechanisms were in place to ensure people received the right dose, at the right time and were kept safe from harm.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to cover all visits and meet people's needs. People consistently told us they were supported by the same staff who arrived on time and stayed for the whole duration of the visit.
The recruitment process aims to attract and maintain a workforce that is committed and caring, with a positive attitude, reflecting the same values of the organisation. There were extremely robust staff recruitment practices in place and staff employed were suitable to work with people in their own homes.
The induction process was detailed and thorough. The induction pack contained practical examples and in depth information that new carers could take away and keep for future reference. Staff valued the amount and type of training on offer. The service listened to staff and was proactive in sourcing training to meet people’s needs.
There was a proactive support and appraisal system for staff, which recognised that continuous development of skills, competence and knowledge is integral to ensuring high quality care and support. Staff were supported through individual supervision.
Observational checks of staff performance were carried out in people's homes with their consent in the form of spot checks. People thought it was good to see that the staff had regular checks, as this gave them confidence that staff were doing things properly. Staff had the support needed to enable them to develop into their role with the skills and confidence required to support people well.
We were satisfied through the analysis of records and observations of staff that the service sought to deliver care and support in a way that was non-discriminatory and respected personal preferences. People were assured their sensitive information was treated confidentially, carefully and in line with the Data Protection Act.
People knew how to complain and who to complain to, although the service had received no complaints at the time of our inspection. People and their relatives told us that they felt confident they would be listened to if they made a complaint. There had been many compliments received from people and their relatives about the care provided by staff, and for the small gestures afforded by the company.
Systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision such as monitoring visits and management checks were thorough and robust. Where issues had been identified these were quickly addressed by management. People were encouraged to provide feedback. The company regarded all feedback as positive feedback as it meant that lessons were learned and practice could be improved as a result.
The use of technology was being further explored. Management had also looked at innovative ways of maintaining communication with and for staff who worked in the community, to make sure they were informed of changes and could share views and information with each other.
The company valued their staff and communicated with all staff to provide updates and celebrate team accomplishments. Staff highly regarded the communication and feedback from management and felt valued and appreciated by the company.
The company had fostered good links with the local community and the managing director had an active role on the board of Trafford Carers Centre. Where corporate policies and documents lacked detail the company could evidence action they had taken to strengthen these areas.
The company’s five year Strategic Development Plan highlighted the sustainable growth that had been achieved since registration in 2015 and that planned to 2021. There were six master objectives that the company set out to achieve and we could see from our inspection that a number of these were in progress or nearly met.
There was a consistent team work approach from all employees, from members of the management team to those providing care and support. This ultimately benefitted people using the service and had a positive impact on the lives of those receiving care and support delivered by Heritage Healthcare.
We inspected this service on 4 November 2015. The inspection was unannounced which means they did not know we were coming to the service to undertake an inspection. The service had not been inspected since it was registered in June 2015.
Heritage Healthcare is a new domiciliary agency providing support to 16 clients in and around the areas of Sale, Flixton and Stockport.
On the day of inspection there were 6 members of staff employed by the service. Interviews had taken place the day before the inspection and the provider told us that they were looking to recruit one additional member to the care team.
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.
A registered manager was not in post on the day of inspection. The previous registered manger had left the service the week before this inspection took place but we found this had not disrupted the service. The provider was intending to appoint a particular individual as the new manager who had extensive experience in the public health sector. We were able to meet with them on the day of inspection and saw the quality checks that they had undertaken that week.
Staff ratios were adequate to meet the needs of people using the agency. The service had robust recruitment processes in place to ensure that the right people were appointed. Proper recruitment checks were carried out, including checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
We found people were involved in assessing their needs and in their care planning. Relatives and people who used the service told us the staff were caring. Staff were able to describe the procedures in place to report concerns if they felt someone was at risk of harm and abuse and people told us they felt safe when receiving care and support from staff.
Staff were aware of infection control and took the necessary precautions to help prevent the spread of infection whilst working in the community. Medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely although not all staff involved in the administering of medication had been assessed as competent to do so.
People, their relatives, staff and other professionals were complimentary about the service. Mechanisms were in place to deal with any complaints raised, however, people told us they had had no reason to complain.
The service ensured that all staff were trained to enable them to deliver safe and effective care and the provider invested in the personal development of the staff.
There was an effective system of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service and to improve where necessary. At the time of our inspection the provider had recognised and prioritised areas for improvement and was working towards these with the full support of the staff.