You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

This was our first inspection of Joy2care. The visit was announced and was carried out on 28 November 2017. The provider was given notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that someone would be in the office.

The service provided domiciliary care and support to people living in and around the town of Carlton, Nottinghamshire. At the time of our inspection there were 53 people using the service.

The service’s provider is also the registered manager and as such is a 'registered person'. 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 told us they felt safe using Joy2care and felt safe with the staff team who provided their care and support. Relatives we spoke with agreed that their relatives were safe with the staff team who supported them.

The staff team had received training on the safeguarding of adults and were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe from avoidable harm or abuse. The provider and the management team were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe and knew to refer any concerns on to the local authority and Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People’s care and support needs had been identified and risks presented to either the people using the service or the staff team had been assessed and managed. There were arrangements in place to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service.

Appropriate checks had been carried out when new members of staff had been employed to make sure they were suitable to work at the service. Staff members had been suitably inducted into the service and relevant training had been provided to enable them to appropriately support the people using the service.

People told us there were enough staff members to meet their current needs. They told us they had regular members of staff who always turned up, never missed a visit and always stayed the correct length of time.

The staff team had received training in the management of medicines. People were supported with their medicines as prescribed by their doctor and in line with the provider’s medicines policy.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to maintain good health. They were supported to access relevant healthcare services such as doctors and community nurses when needed and they received on-going healthcare support.

People told us the staff team were kind and they were treated in a caring and respectful manner. They told us their care and support was provided in a way they preferred and choices were always offered.

People were supported in a way they preferred because plans of care had been developed with them and with people who knew them well. The staff team knew the needs of the people they were supporting because appropriate plans of care were in place which included people's personal preferences.

The provider had an end of life policy in place which showed the staff team how to provide high quality care for people as they approached the end of their life.

People had the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run. They were asked for their opinions of the service on a regular basis. This was through visits to people's homes and through the use of surveys.

Management monitored the service being provided to make sure people received the safe care and support they required. A number of auditing processes were developed to assist the formal monitoring process moving forward. A business continuity plan was in place for emergencies or untoward events.

The registered manager/provider was aware of their registration responsibilities including notifying CQC of

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was safe.

People were kept safe from abuse and avoidable harm and the risks associated with people�s care were assessed and managed.

A robust recruitment process meant only suitable people worked at the service.

People were supported with their medicines safely.

People were protected from risks to their health and well-being by the prevention and control of infection processes that were in place.

Lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was effective.

People received support from a staff team who had the necessary knowledge and skills.

People were supported to make decisions around their day to day lives. The staff team always asked for people�s consent before supporting them.

People were supported to eat well and were assisted to access health care services when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was caring.

The staff team were kind and caring and they treated people with dignity and respect.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Information about people was kept confidential.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and they were involved in developing their plan of care.

People's plans of care included their personal preferences and they received care and support that was responsive to their needs.

People knew how to raise a complaint and were confident that any concern would be dealt with appropriately.

The staff team had received training on end of life/palliative care and people were properly supported when coming to the end of their life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was well led.

People using the service told us the service was well managed and the management team were friendly and approachable. Staff members we spoke with agreed.

People were given the opportunity to share their thoughts on how the service was run.

Quality monitoring and governance systems were in place and used to drive continuous improvement.