You are here

Thames Homecare Service Ltd Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

This inspection took place on 3 and 8 May 2018. We gave the service three days’ notice of the inspection site visits because the service provides support to people living in their own homes and we needed to be sure the registered manager was available.

The last inspection of the service was on 18 March 2016 when we rated the service as Good for the key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led and Good overall.

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 people. When we inspected, the service was providing care and support to 167 people living in the London Boroughs of Ealing, Barnet, Hillingdon and Hounslow.

Not everyone using Thames Homecare Services Ltd receives 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.

The service has a registered manager. 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 was very caring. People said their care workers treated them with exceptional kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People developed excellent open and honest relationships with their care workers.

People were expertly matched with care workers who had complimentary personalities, backgrounds or shared interests. People received full choice in their care, including choice of the care workers who cared for them.

The provider went the extra mile in ensuring people received compassionate care. People were supported to maintain their independence.

The provider had systems to keep people safe and care workers had completed the training they needed to provide safe care and support.

The provider assessed risks to people using the service and took action to mitigate risks they identified.

There were systems to ensure that care workers the provider employed were suitable to work with people using the service.

People received the medicines they needed safely and as prescribed. Where people needed support with eating and drinking the provider included this in their care plan and gave care workers clear guidance on the support the person needed.

The provider learned lessons when things went wrong and made changes to improve the delivery of care and support to people using the service.

Care workers completed a thorough induction and training the provider considered mandatory. Where people had specific care needs, for example diabetes, epilepsy or end of life care, the provider arranged relevant additional training for their care workers.

The registered manager, office staff and care workers had completed raining in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They understood their responsibilities under the MCA and only provided care and support with people’s consent.

The provider assessed people’s care needs and developed care plans and guidance for care workers that ensured people received the care and support they needed.

The provider had systems for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. They recorded and investigated any complaints they received and resolved these where possible.

The provider had a clear vision to provide people with high quality care and support. Staff understood this vision and worked together to deliver this to people using the service.

There was a clear management structure and the provider had systems to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

The provider worked well with other agencies and ensured they met the requirements of their CQC registration.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was safe.

The provider had systems to keep people safe and care workers had completed the training they needed to provide safe care and support.

The provider assessed risks to people using the service and took action to mitigate risks they identified.

There were systems to ensure that care workers the provider employed were suitable to work with people using the service.

People received the medicines they needed safely and as prescribed.

The provider learned lessons when things went wrong and made changes to improve the delivery of care and support to people using the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was effective.

Care workers completed a thorough induction and training the provider considered mandatory. Where people had specific care needs, for example diabetes, epilepsy or end of life care, the provider arranged relevant additional training for their care workers.

Where people needed support with eating and drinking the provider included this in their care plan and gave care workers clear guidance on the support the person needed. Care workers also supported people to access healthcare services, where this was part of their care plan.

The registered manager, office staff and care workers had completed raining in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They understood their responsibilities under the MCA and only provided care and support with people’s consent.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was exceptionally caring.

People said their care workers treated them with exceptional kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People developed excellent open and honest relationships with their care workers.

People were expertly matched with care workers who had complimentary personalities, backgrounds or shared interests. People received full choice in their care, including choice of the care workers who cared for them.

The provider went the extra mile in ensuring people received compassionate care. People were supported to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was responsive.

The provider assessed people’s care needs and developed care plans and guidance for care workers that ensured people received the care and support they needed.

The provider had systems for responding to people’s concerns and complaints. They recorded and investigated any complaints they received and resolved these where possible.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 June 2018

The service was well led.

The provider had a clear vision to provide people with high quality care and support. Staff understood this vision and worked together to deliver this to people using the service.

There was a clear management structure and the provider had systems to monitor quality in the service and make improvements.

The provider worked well with other agencies and ensured they met the requirements of their CQC registration.