You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

About the service

Agincare UK Brighton is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes, hostels and Brooke Mead extra care housing scheme. Brooke Mead is a single adapted building comprising of 45 self-contained flats which are managed by Brighton and Hove City Council.

At the time of our inspection, 171 people aged between their mid-thirties to their mid-nineties were receiving personal care and support from this home care agency. Some of these people were living with dementia, experienced mental ill health, had a learning disability or complex physical health care needs.

People’s experience of using this service

People told us they remained happy with the home care service they received from Agincare UK Brighton. A quote we received from a person using this home care service summed up how most people felt about the agency – “My regular carers are amazing…They can be relied upon at all times. I could not speak more highly of them.”

As recommended in our last inspection we saw the provider had taken appropriate action to improve the way they coordinated staffs scheduled visits. This ensured people now received continuity of personal care and support from staff who were familiar with their needs, daily routines and preferences.

People receiving a home care service, their relatives and staff were complimentary about the way the office-based managers ran the agency and how approachable they all were. The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives and staff. The provider worked in close partnership with other health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people’s packages of care and support.

People were supported by staff who knew how to prevent and manage risks they might face and keep them safe from avoidable harm. Staff continued to undergo all the relevant pre-employment checks to ensure their suitability and fitness for the role. People received consistently good personal care and support from staff who were usually punctual and stayed for as long as it took to complete the tasks they were expected to do. People received their medicines as they were prescribed. The service’s arrangements for controlling infection remained effective.

People continued to receive personal care from staff who had completed training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities. 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. Where staff were responsible for this, people were supported to maintain a nutritionally well-balanced diet. People continued to be supported to stay physically and emotionally healthy and well.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were treated equally and had their human rights and diversity respected, including their spiritual and cultural needs and wishes. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independent living skills and do as much for themselves as they were willing and capable of doing. Assessments of people’s support needs were carried out before they started using the service.

Care plans remained personalised, which ensured people received personal care that was tailored to meet their individual needs and wishes. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received and had their choices respected. Managers and staff understood the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people were given information in a way they could understand. People were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns and complaints. When people were nearing the end of their life, they had received compassionate and supportive care from this agency.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQ

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 January 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.