You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

Chesterford Homecare is a domiciliary care agency and provides care to people living at home in the community. This service provides both live in carers and visiting carers and supports older people, people living with dementia and adults with a physical disability. Chesterford Homecare was previously known as Audley Homecare and at the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service, of which 13 people were in receipt of personal care.

There was a registered manager in place who had been registered since the last inspection and was present at the inspection. 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 its last comprehensive inspection in September 2017 and we identified a number of concerns and rated the service ‘requires improvement.’ We asked the provider to take action in response to our findings. At this inspection we found that the provider had addressed the concerns that we identified.

At our last inspection quality assurance systems had not always been effective in recognising and rectifying issues and where people’s views about the service had been obtained there had been no analysis of the feedback. At this inspection we found that audits on practice and on documentation had been undertaken on a regular basis and the information used to drive improvement at the service. People’s views about their experience of using the service had been obtained, the results analysed and actions taken to address the issues identified. The results showed that people had confidence in the service and the quality of care provided. People’s comments, including both positive and negative had been published along with the actions taken which demonstrated an openness and transparency.

At our last inspection we found that the systems in place for the recruitment and selection of staff were ineffective and recruitment checks had not routinely been carried out before staff started their employment. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and appropriate checks were undertaken on staff prior to their employment to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service.

At the last inspection we found that not everyone had an up to date care plan which guided staff as to their care and support needs. Risks to people’s wellbeing had not always been clearly identified and actions taken to minimise these. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. People's needs were assessed prior to the commencement of care and the information used to develop a detailed and informative care plan to guide staff. The care plans were person centred and people’s care needs were regularly reviewed and plans amended as required. Staff were provided with guidance about how risks should be managed and steps that staff should take to reduce the likelihood of harm.

There were sufficient staff employed and people told us that they received care from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. There were clear systems in place for people and staff to seek advice and support out of hours. On the occasions where the service used staff from another agency we saw that they asked the other care agency to provide information on the staff as to their suitability.

There were systems in place for the management of safeguarding concerns and staff were clear about the actions that they should take if they had a concern.

There were procedures in place to guide staff in the administration of medicines and regular audits to check that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. During the course of the inspection we identified a small number of anomalies with medicines and the registered manager respon

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was safe

There were systems and processes in place to guide staff on how to keep people safe.

Risks to people�s wellbeing were identified and plans were in place to reduce risks.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people using the service and clear arrangements in place to meet people�s needs outside office hours.

The provider checked people�s suitability to work with vulnerable people.

There were systems in place to oversee the administration of medicines.

Staff were clear about their responsibilities to reduce the likelihood of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received training to enable them meet people�s needs.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and sought people's consent prior to providing care.

People were referred appropriately to external services when their needs changed.

People were supported to eat and drink.

People were given support to help them stay healthy and access health care support when they needed to.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was caring.

People had good relationships with staff.

People were consulted about their care needs.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People had their needs assessed before they started to use the service and the information was used to develop a plan of care. People�s needs were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the care provided was appropriate.

Complaints procedures were in place and people�s concerns were investigated.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was well led.

There is a clear management structure and visible leadership.

Quality assurance systems were in place to drive continuous improvement at the service.