You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

This announced inspection took place on the 27 and 28 June 2018. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care and support to people living in their own homes and we wanted to make sure staff would be available to talk to us about the service. Gee Professional Services is a domiciliary care agency registered to provider personal care to people living in their own homes. The service currently provides care and support to 13 people.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At our last inspection on 06 and 13 July 2017 we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’. We found the provider was in breach of the regulation regarding notification of incidents. We asked the provider to take action to meet this regulation and to make improvements in relation to risk assessments, recruitment systems and quality monitoring systems. At this inspection, we found these improvements had been made and the regulation had been met.

People were safe because they were supported by a consistent staff team that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff had a good understanding of how to spot signs of abuse and where to report concerns to. Individual risks to people were assessed and staff knew how to reduce risks to people. People received their medicines as prescribed.

People were asked for consent before providing support and were supported to make their own decisions. People and their relatives were kept up to date and involved in their care and reviews. Information about people’s support needs was personalised and staff knew people well including their likes, dislikes and history. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns.

People told us staff were kind and caring. People were supported in dignified way and were encouraged to be independent.

Staff felt supported in their roles. The provider had quality monitoring systems in place and sought feedback from people and relatives to drive improvement within the home. People and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was safe.

Individual risks to people were assessed and staff were aware of how to minimise risks to people.

People were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from abuse and how to report concerns.

People received support from consistent staff. There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as required.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who has the required skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People were asked to give consent before staff provided support.

People received the appropriate support with their meals and drinks and had access to healthcare professionals as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was caring.

People received support from staff who had a kind and caring nature.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible and were supported to make their own decisions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People and relatives were involved in the assessment, planning and review of their care and support.

People’s care records were personalised to them and staff knew their needs well.

People and relatives knew how to raise concerns or complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 July 2018

The service was well-led.

People and relatives were asked to provide feedback on the service to drive improvement.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the service and felt able to raise concerns.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service had been improved and identified areas for improvement and development.