Archived: HomeLife Carers Ltd

People’s experience of using this service:

There had been changes to the provider since our last visit with a new company taking the lead. They were working with the registered manager to implement new systems at the service which was causing some anxiety amongst staff. The registered manager was working with staff to minimise the uncertainty during the transition.

People were happy with the service they received. People told us they felt safe and mostly had a consistent reliable staff group who always turned up on time or informed them if they were running late.

Risks associated with people’s care had been assessed and managed to keep people safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures should they be concerned a person may not be safe.

People's needs were assessed before they started to receive care visits to make sure their needs could be met. Care plans confirmed how people should receive support and people's experience of their care visits were regularly reviewed to ensure these were completed in accordance with what had been agreed.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness. Staff knew people well and provided personalised care. 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.

People received their medicines safely. We discussed medicine administration records were not consistently clear. The registered manager assured us a new computerised system being implemented would make medicine information clearer for staff.

Staff understood their responsibilities to maintain good infection control practices to prevent the spread of infection and people confirmed staff followed good practice when supporting them.

There were enough suitably trained staff available to meet people's contractual agreements. People confirmed they received the support as agreed and spoke positively of the caring approach of staff. Competency checks of staff were regularly undertaken to make sure they continued to support people safely and appropriately.

Staff worked with other professionals to ensure people received support when needed. Staff supported people to make contact with health care professionals if required.

People knew how to raise any concerns if needed. The registered manager had responded to complaints and taken actions to resolve them.

There was a quality monitoring system to enable the registered manager and provider to have oversight of the service, and make sure any improvements needed, were identified and acted upon.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published in January 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

HomeLife Carers Limited is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to about 250 people living in their own homes in Tiverton, Crediton and Cullompton areas of Devon and the surrounding villages.

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.

Staff knew about the signs of abuse and where concerns about suspected abuse were identified, they reported them to the local authority safeguarding team. The service worked closely with health and social care professionals to implement measures to safeguard people.

Risk assessments were carried out for each person, which identified steps staff needed to take to promote their safety and welfare. Staff were aware of risks and were taking action to minimise risks and keep each person safe. People received their medicines on time and in a safe way. The agency had robust recruitment procedures in place for recruiting new staff and checks were made to ensure new staff were suitable to work in people’s homes.

People and relatives thought staff had the appropriate skills and training to carry out their role. The provider had a comprehensive training programme. Staff gave us positive feedback about the training and development opportunities at the agency. A range of new training relevant to individual needs of people they supported was arranged over the next few months, for example, supporting people with a learning disability,those living with dementia and with mental health needs.

People confirmed staff sought their consent before providing any care and where people lacked capacity, staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) and how this applied to their practice.

Staff developed positive and caring relationships with people. People confirmed staff respected their privacy and treated them with dignity and respect. People’s care was individualised to their needs. People were consulted and involved in their care plans and signed them to confirm they agreed with their content. Care records had detailed information about each person, their needs and preferences and what mattered to them. Care plans were reviewed and updated regularly as people’s needs changed.

People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints and felt confident to do so. Where concerns were raised these were investigated and remedial action taken to make improvements. The provider was open and honest where mistakes had happened, and offered apologies and outlined improvements made.

The culture of the service was open. Care and office staff worked well together as a team. The provider promoted good standards of care by praising and recognising good practice and continuing to develop the staff team. People and staff were very positive about the leadership of the agency and the improvements made over the past year. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems which included spot checks, regular review meetings, and a range of audits, annual survey and provider visits at the branch office. The service made continuous improvements in response to their findings.