We carried out a review of the data available to us about Caringhands@home Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Caringhands@home Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Caringhands@home Limited is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to seven people at the time of the inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Recommendations made following the last inspection had been met and improvements had been made to the management of medicines and quality assurance procedures.
We have made a recommendation about end of life care and support as people preferences and wishes at this important time had not been explored.
People were supported by a small team of consistent staff which resulted in trusting, caring and compassionate relationships. Staff knew people well and supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People and their family members told us they felt safe with the care staff. Safeguarding procedures were understood and followed as needed. Lessons had been learnt and steps taken to minimise risk. Risk assessments were in place which minimised the possibility of harm whilst also supporting people to maintain their independence and free will.
People’s needs, and preferences were recorded and regularly reviewed to make sure people were happy with the care and support they received. Staff worked alongside other healthcare professionals and followed any guidance that was put in place.
Everyone told us they knew how to make a complaint but had never had reason to do so. Many people and their family members commented, “I wouldn’t change a thing.”
Social isolation was reduced as social support could be provided as part of people’s care to ensure people kept in touch with family and friends and maintained hobbies and interests.
People, family members and staff all agreed the service was well-led and the registered manager was approachable and supportive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 13 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Caringhands@home Limited is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support for people within their own homes. At the time of this inspection the service provided care to nine people.
A registered manager was in place. 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 registered manager is also the registered provider.
People and relatives spoke very highly of all aspects of the service. They told us they felt safe with staff employed by the service. A safeguarding policy was in place and staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities in responding to any concerns of a safeguarding nature.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. People's care was provided by a small team of staff, who knew people and their needs well. Processes were in place to ensure any staff absences could be covered so people still received their scheduled visits. Robust recruitment procedures had been followed.
Staff had undertaken training in a range of subjects through both online e-learning and face to face practical training. At the time of the inspection there were some gaps in staff training, but the registered manager showed us evidence this training had been booked for staff to attend shortly after our inspection. The registered manager was developing a training matrix to ensure staff skills and knowledge remained up to date.
Staff had received training in the administration of medicines. We noted some records did not include specific information about how to support people with their medicines, and have made a recommendation about this.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have the ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their 'best interests'. We found the provider was complying with their legal requirements.
People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They told us care was planned around their choices and that staff were kind and respectful. People and relatives told us staff went out of their way to provide the best service they could.
People's needs had been assessed and care had been planned to meet those needs. We noted the level of detail in care plans was varied, however staff we spoke with were very knowledgeable about people and the care they required.
People were encouraged to share their feedback. The registered manager visited people to carry out reviews, 'spot checks' on staff conduct, and to provide care. People were also regularly asked to complete surveys which were themed around specific parts of their care delivery. We saw positive responses had been received to the most recent survey.
The service had not received any complaints since it had been operating. People we spoke with told us they would not hesitate in sharing any concerns, but that they were very satisfied with the service.
A range of checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service. They had not highlighted the variance in details in care records, and have made a recommendation about this.
People and their relative's told us the service was managed very well. Staff told us they felt listened to and valued. Staff meetings were held regularly. The registered manager shared with us their vision for the culture of the service, which was to provide a caring and person-centred service. All of the staff we spoke with told us they agreed this culture was in place.