You are here

Kerr-Care At Home Services Ltd - Right At Home (Wimbledon, Putney and Kingston) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

Kerr-Care At Home Services Ltd - Right At Home (Wimbledon, Putney and Kingston) is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 25 people were receiving a service from this agency who were mostly older adults with a wide range of health care needs and conditions.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection of this service in May 2015 we rated them ‘Good’ overall. In October 2015 Kerr-Care At Home Services Ltd - Right At Home (Wimbledon, Putney and Kingston) reregistered with the CQC. Consequently, this inspection represents this new provider’s inaugural inspection and rating, although most people using the service, managers and staff, and their processes and systems remain the same. We found this newly registered service met the regulations and fundamental standards and we have rated them ‘Good’ overall.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their relatives told us that overall they were happy with the care and support this service provided. We saw staff looked after people in a way which was kind and caring. Staff had built caring and friendly relationships with people they regularly provided care to. Our discussions with people using the service, their relatives and staff supported this.

People felt safe with the staff who provided their care and support. There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse. The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs. Recruitment procedures were designed to prevent people from being cared for by unsuitable staff. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

People did not have major concerns about staff turning up late or missing a scheduled visit. This indicated there were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people. Staffing levels were continuously monitored by managers and senior staff to ensure people experienced consistency and continuity in their care and that their needs could be met at all times.

Staff received appropriate training and support to ensure they had the right knowledge and skills to effectively meet people’s needs. Managers monitored staff training to ensure their existing knowledge and skills remained up to date. Managers and senior staff were also in regular contact with the staff team to check they were clear about their duties and responsibilities to the people they cared for. Staff adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice.

People were supported to eat healthily, where the agency was responsible for this. Staff also took account of people’s food and drink preferences when they prepared meals. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services. Staff were knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms to look out for that indicated a person’s health may be deteriorating.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. They ensured people’s privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. When people were nearing the end of their life, they received compassionate and supportive care.

People received personalised support that was responsive to their individual needs. People were involved in planning the care and support they received. Each person had an up to date, personalised care pla

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was safe.

There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse.

The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs.

Staff recruitment procedures were designed to prevent people from being cared for by unsuitable staff. There were enough competent staff available who could be matched with people using the service to ensure their needs were met.

Where the service was responsible supporting people to manage their medicines, staff ensured they received their prescribed medicines at times they needed them.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was effective. Staff continued to receive appropriate training and support to ensure they had the knowledge and skills needed to perform their roles effectively. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the MCA.

People were supported to eat healthily, where the service was responsible for this. Staff also took account of people’s food and drink preferences when they prepared meals.

People were supported to stay healthy and well. If staff had any concerns about a person’s health appropriate support was sought.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was caring. People said staff were kind, caring and respectful.

Staff were thoughtful and considerate when delivering care to people. They ensured people’s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was maintained, particularly when receiving personal care.

People were supported to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves to retain control and independence over their lives. When people were nearing the end of their life, they received compassionate and supportive care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was responsive. People were involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support needs.

Support plans reflected people’s choices and preferences for how care was provided. These were reviewed regularly by the registered manager.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were dissatisfied with the service they received. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with people's concerns and complaints in an appropriate way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 August 2017

The service was well-led. Managers provided good leadership.

The provider routinely gathered feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. This feedback alongside the provider’s own audits and quality checks was used to continually assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service they provided.