We carried out a review of the data available to us about In Caring Hands on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about In Caring Hands, you can give feedback on this service.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in the community in The St Austell and Roseland areas. The packages of care provided range from providing support to help people get up and go to bed, meal preparation and help with housework, to going out in to the local area and attending medical appointments. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting a 31 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People using the service consistently told us they felt safe and that staff were caring and respectful. Their comments included, “The staff are wonderful, and [Relatives name] is very safe with them all” and “I feel totally relaxed and safe with the staff.”
There were enough staff available to provide all planned care visits. The service had experienced considerable recruitment challenges recently with staff leaving quickly after commencing their employment. The provider told us they were reviewing their processes to try to avoid this. All necessary recruitments checks had been completed for new staff.
Only one of the people we spoke with reported having experienced a missed care visit. This was due to the hospital not informing the service about the person’s discharge in a timely manner. This person had family to support them and did not suffer any impact because of this missed visit. The provider closely monitored for any missed visits.
Risks had been identified and assessed and staff were provided with guidance on how to manage and mitigate risks while providing support. However, we identified that one recent risk assessment review had failed to identify considerable trip hazards in one person’s home. We discussed this with the provider and were assured this would be reviewed immediately with the staff concerned.
An electronic call monitoring system was in place to record visits when they were provided. This enabled the provider to check they were at the time agreed. However, due to fluctuating internet signal around specific areas of the county this had proved unhelpful in monitoring staff visits to some people. The provider audited daily care records to ensure people had the agree length of time spent with them.
The service had appropriate procedures in place during periods of adverse weather.
The service had vehicles available to staff when needed, to reduce the risk of visits being missed due to vehicle breakdowns.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed.
People and relatives told us, "Absolutely marvellous, we really are so blessed to be receiving support from In Caring Hands they are a lovely agency. They are flexible and extremely helpful. We work well together” and “I would recommend them and give them 110%.”
People received support from small teams of staff who visited regularly. Staff told us, “I tend to visit the same people most of the time. You really get to know them well” and “They [Management] try to keep us on the same round.” Relatives told us, “We have our regulars, they are all wonderful”
People were able to make choices and staff respected their decisions. Some people requested only female staff, and this was respected.
People and their relatives were involved in the development and review of care plans. A recent survey’s responses showed people, or their relatives, were aware of the care plan and involved in any changes that may be needed.
Care plans included clear guidance on the support required during each visit.
People were supported to access healthcare services, staff recognised changes in people's health, and sought professional advice appropriately. Some people were accompanied by staff to attend medical appointments.
Staff were well motivated and there was a positive open culture within the service. The provider and management were very keen to provide the best service possible.
People’s feedback was valued, and records showed action had been taken to address and resolve any issues reported to managers.
Management roles were clearly defined and there were effective quality assurance processes in place. People and relatives told us the service was well led. Comments included, “The manager is a very good organiser, we have no concerns at all. I would give her an A star” and “Mum really gets on well with the staff, knows all their names and gives them all a hug when they leave, and that is the most important thing for me. They always let me know if things change.”
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the time of our inspection 37 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately, through Cornwall Council or NHS funding.
There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We carried out this announced inspection on 16 and 17 May 2017. This was the service’s first inspection as it was first registered in January 2016.
People we spoke with told us they were positive about the support they received from the service. They said the service was, “Fantastic. They have never missed a day. They will always ring if they are going to be late,” “Very satisfied, everything is lovely,” and “I am 100% satisfied with the service.”
People told us they felt safe. Most staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.
There were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs. People told us they had a team of regular staff and mostly their visits were at the agreed times. Most people told us they had never experienced a missed care visit.
People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke very highly of staff and typical comments included; “Nothing is too much trouble”, “There is nothing to complain about,” “They are nice and kind,” “Staff are nice and helpful,” and “All very nice people, they all do the best they can.”
Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed.
Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.
The management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions
for themselves had their legal rights protected.
Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff said management were, “Fantastic,” and “Very supportive.”
There were effective quality assurance systems in place. The service had an effective management team, and Care Quality Commission registration, and notification requirements had been complied with.
We have made two recommendations about staff induction procedures and training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.