You are here

Insignia Healthcare (Norwich) Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The inspection was announced and took place on 22 August 2017.

Insignia Healthcare (Norwich) was registered by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 3 December 2015. New services are assessed to check they are likely to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This was the first comprehensive inspection since the provider registered with CQC to provide personal care to people. As such, they had not yet received a CQC rating.

Insignia Healthcare (Norwich) is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people with a variety of needs including older people, people living with dementia, younger adults, people with a learning disability, physical disability and people who need support with their mental health. The agency's office is located in St. Andrew, Norwich. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care to 19 people.

There was a registered manager in post who was also the provider of the service. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager, we refer to them as being, 'the registered persons'. The provider had recently appointed a manager with the intention they become registered and manage the service on a day to day basis. They had also submitted an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People and healthcare assistants spoke highly of the care co-ordinators and the company. People expressed satisfaction with the service they received. However, the provider had found that quality assurance systems were not always being used to ensure accurate records were maintained and to drive improvements. The provider had implemented computer software 10 days prior to the inspection to improve this, however we will need to assess how this improvement has been embedded and sustained at our next inspection. We found no evidence that the lack of audits and gaps in records had impacted on the quality of service people received.

Risks to people's wellbeing and safety had been effectively mitigated. We found individual risks had been assessed and recorded in people's care plans. Examples of risk assessments relating to personal care included moving and handling, nutrition, falls and continence support. Health care needs were met well, with prompt referrals made when necessary.

People told us they felt safe receiving the care and support provided by the service. Staff understood and knew the signs of potential abuse and knew what to do if they needed to raise a safeguarding concern. Training schedules confirmed staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been made before staff began work at the service. This contributed to protecting people from the employment of staff who were not suitable to work in care. There were enough staff to protect people's health, safety and welfare in a consistent and reliable way.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. Medicines were managed safely.

The management team and staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consent to care and treatment.

People chose their own food and drink and were supported to maintain a balanced diet where this was required.

People said staff were caring and kind and their individual needs were met. Staff knew people well and demonstrated they had a good understanding of people's needs and choices. Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff recognised people's right to privacy and promoted their dignity.

We looked at

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service was safe.

People had detailed care plans, which included an assessment of risk. These contained sufficient detail to inform staff of risk factors and appropriate responses.

People were supported by trained staff who knew what action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

There were enough staff to cover calls and ensure people received a reliable service. Safe recruitment systems were in place.

People's medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received training and supervision to carry out their roles.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and put this into practice.

Staff protected people from the risk of poor nutrition and dehydration.

People had their health needs met and were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People involved in all aspects of their care and in their care plans.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who took the time to listen and communicate.

People were encouraged to express their views and to make choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans provided detailed information to staff on people's care needs and how they wished to be supported.

People's needs were assessed prior to them receiving a service.

People were provided with information on how to raise a concern or complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 October 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider had recently changed their quality assurance processes too fully monitor the quality of service provided and to ensure robust records management. We will need to assess how this improvement has been embedded and sustained at our next inspection.

There was an open and positive culture, which focussed on providing high quality support for people.

Staff were supported and listened to by the provider. They were clear about their responsibilities.