You are here

Archived: Bespoke Care At Home Good

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

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

Our inspection took place on 28 November 2017 and was announced.

Bespoke Care at Home is a family-operated domiciliary care service based in Burnham. The service provides personal care to people in their own home. The service supports people in Burnham, Slough, Maidenhead, Windsor and surrounding areas.

At the time of our inspection, 51 people used the service and there were 40 staff.

People were protected from abuse and neglect. Appropriate systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of preventable harm. People’s care risks were appropriately assessed, mitigated and recorded. Recruitment practices and supporting documentation met the requirements set by the applicable legislation. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were safely managed. We made a recommendation about people’s medicines management.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted 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. We made a recommendation about the required evidence for people’s enduring and lasting powers of attorney.

Staff induction, training, supervision and performance appraisals were satisfactory and ensured workers had the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively support people. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. We found there was collaborative working with other community healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The service was caring. There was complimentary feedback from people who used the service and relatives. People told us they were able to participate in care planning and reviews and some decisions. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when care was provided to them.

Care plans were appropriate and contained information of how to support people in the right way. We saw there was a complaints system in place which included the ability for people to contact any office-based staff member or the management team. Some improvement was required in the way concerns and complaints were recorded. We made a recommendation about complaints management. Questionnaires were used to determine people’s satisfaction with the care.

People had positive opinions about the management and leadership of the service. There was a good workplace culture and we saw the staff worked cohesively to ensure good care for people. Audits and checks were used to gauge the safety and quality of care. The provider met the conditions of registration and complied with other relevant legislation related to the adult social care sector.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was safe.

Effective systems were in place to protect people from the risks of abuse or neglect.

Appropriate risk assessments about people�s care were completed and regularly reviewed.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs, although people expressed there should be better continuity.

People�s medicines were safely managed.

Lessons were learned and improvements made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was effective.

There were satisfactory levels of staff induction, training, supervision and performance review.

People�s consent was obtained but further information was required about alternate decision-makers.

People�s likes, preferences and care routines were well-documented.

The service worked well with other community healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were patient and kind.

People had developed positive relationships with staff.

People were encouraged to participate in care decision-making.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care was tailored to their needs.

People�s care was reviewed and changed, when required.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint.

The service actively sought and acted on people�s feedback.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 January 2018

The service was well-led.

People and relatives told us the service was well-led.

There was a positive workplace culture with clear organisational goals and objectives.

Staff were involved in the operation of the service and had good access to the management team.

Relevant audits were completed to ensure safe, quality care.

The service was compliant with the conditions of the registration.