You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The inspection took place on 14 September 2017 and 15 September 2017 and the provider was given 48 hours’ notice. This was the first inspection since the service registered in September 2015.

Saga Healthcare is a domiciliary care agency providing hourly and live in support to people living within their own homes. They provide support to people with physical disabilities, long term medical conditions and people who are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 53 people receiving personal care.

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. 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.

People were kept safe because the provider assessed risks to people and these were regularly reviewed. Where risks were identified, plans were implemented to keep people safe. Where incidents or accidents had occurred, staff took robust action to prevent them from happening again.

Care was delivered in a person-centred way and people’s records reflected their routines and preferences. Care plans were reviewed regularly and people received a thorough assessment before staff provided care to them. The provider had systems in place to involve people in their care and ensure that people were supported by staff that knew them well.

People’s healthcare needs were met by staff who worked alongside healthcare professionals. People’s medicines were administered by trained staff who had access to important information about people’s health and prescribed medicines. People’s nutritional needs were met by staff that had access to information about people’s dietary requirements and food preferences. Staff knew how to offer people choices and staff were trained in how to follow the guidance of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

The provider’s IT systems were being constantly developed and improved in line with the provider’s improvement plans. Care calls were rostered on a bespoke rostering system and people told us that staff were on time to care calls. People knew how to make a complaint and the provider responded appropriately to any issues raised by people or their relatives. Regular surveys were undertaken to assure the quality of the care that people received.

People were supported by staff that were trained to meet their needs. Staff had regular contact with management and regular supervision meetings and appraisals. Staff received a thorough induction before working with people. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to respond if they suspected abuse had occurred. People told us that staff were respectful of their privacy and dignity when supporting them. Staff promoted people’s independence when providing support and offered people choices to involve them in their care. Systems were in place to ensure that staff got to know people’s needs and backgrounds.

Staff benefitted from regular meetings and involvement in the running of the service. The provider had clear lines of communication in place for people and staff. Before working, robust recruitment checks were carried out on staff to ensure that they were suitable for their roles. The provider had systems in place to ensure staff felt valued in their roles.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and plans were identified to keep people safe.

Where accidents or incidents had occurred, staff responded appropriately and took action to keep people safe.

People were supported by staff that understood their roles in safeguarding people from abuse.

Staff were deployed in a way that ensured they were punctual and were able to spend the required time with people.

The provider undertook robust recruitment checks to ensure people were cared for by suitable staff.

People�s medicines were managed and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that were trained to carry out their roles.

The provider undertook regular spot checks and staff benefitted from regular one to one meetings with their supervisors.

People�s nutritional needs were met.

People�s healthcare needs were met by staff in partnership with relevant healthcare professionals.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Caring

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was caring.

People told us that the staff who visited them were kind and compassionate.

People were supported by staff that knew them well.

Staff promoted people�s independence and involved them in their care.

People were involved in their care and offered choices.

Staff were respectful of people�s privacy and dignity when they provided support to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care was planned in a person-centred way and care plans reflected what was important to people.

The provider carried out robust assessments before providing support to people.

People�s needs were reviewed regularly and any changes actioned by staff.

The provider documented and responded to complaints appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 November 2017

The service was well-led.

There were effective communication systems in place and people were able to easily speak to management.

The provider had a clear vision for the future that included creative technologies to improve the running of the service.

Regular audits were carried out to assure the quality of the care that people received.

People were regularly asked for their feedback on the care that they received.

Staff felt supported by management and systems were in place to ensure management was accessible to staff.