You are here

Happier at Home Care Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

This inspection was undertaken on 8 and 14 November 2018 and was announced on both days.

Happier at home is registered to provide personal care and support to people who live in their own homes. The agency office is based in Ellesmere Port and provides support to people in Ellesmere Port, Neston and surrounding areas. At the time of our inspection the service supported 18 people and employed eight staff.

The service had two registered managers. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers they are registered persons. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 7 and 11 September 2017 we found that there were some improvements needed in relation to staffing. This was a breach of Regulation18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We asked the provider to complete an action plan detailing how and when they would make improvements to the areas that were highlighted in the last report. During this inspection we found all the required improvements had been made.

Improvements had been made to the staffing systems. Staff had all received an induction and up-to-date training and had their competency assessed. Staff had all received supervision and an annual appraisal.

Staff recruitment systems were robust and this helped to ensure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. New staff completed the Care certificate, undertook shadow shifts and commenced lone working when they felt confident and competent to do so. Team meetings were held each week with the registered managers.

The registered provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff had all completed safeguarding training and demonstrated a good understanding of what abuse may look like. Staff were clear about the process to follow should they have any concerns and felt confident that the management team would act promptly on these.

People were assessed before they were supported by the service. The information from these assessments was used to prepare individual care plans and risk assessments. People’s needs that related to age, disability, religion or other protected characteristics were considered throughout the assessment and care planning process. The care plans and risk assessments gave clear guidance to staff to ensure that people’s individual needs and preferences were met.

Staff had all undertaken medicines training and had their competency regularly assessed. Medicines management systems were in place and staff followed best practice guidelines. People told us their received their medicines correctly and on time.

People told us that staff supported them with their food and drink needs as required. They told us they were always offered choice and we saw guidance was in place for staff to follow to meet people specific dietary needs.

People spoke positively about the staff that supported them and told us they had developed positive relationships. Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness. Interactions between people and staff were comfortable and friendly. People told us their privacy and dignity was respected and their independence was promoted where possible.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and to report on what we find. We saw that the registered provider had policies and guidance in place for staff in relation to the MCA. Staff had received training in relation to the MCA and demonstrated a basic understanding of it.

The registered provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place. People told us they felt confident to raise any concerns they had and thought they would be listened to.

The registered provider had quality monitoring systems

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was safe.

The risks to people were minimised by up-to-date and relevant risk assessments specific to meet people's needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse through the policies and procedures that were put in place by the registered provider and the training staff received.

The systems in place for the management of medicines were safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had received up-to-date training to ensure they had the right knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.

People's rights were protected by staff who had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received appropriate support to meet their individual food and drink requirements.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was caring.

Positive relationships had been developed between staff and the people who used the service.

People were supported by regular staff that were kind and caring.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were in place that reflected people's individual needs and gave clear guidance to staff for people's preferences.

People's care plans were regularly reviewed and promptly updated as and when any changes occurred.

People and their relatives were aware of the complaints procedures and felt confident that any concerns would be promptly addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 December 2018

The service was well led.

The registered provider regular sought feedback from the people who use the service and their relatives.

The registered provider had an audit system in place that identified areas for development and improvement.

Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff in their work role and employment and these were regularly updated.