Archived: Ellarose Homecare Services Limited

Ellarose is a domiciliary care agency and was providing personal care to 40 people at the time of the inspection.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to 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 received care from regular staff who they knew and trusted and staff told us they would report any concerns to the management team about a person’s wellbeing or safety. Staff knew about risks associated with people’s care and how best to support people to the reduce the risk of harm or injury.

Staff numbers were sufficient to meet the call times people had requested, and people told us staff were on time. People received medicines from staff who had been trained and had their competencies checked.

Staff ensured they used personal protective equipment, such a s gloves and aprons to keep people free from the risk of infection.

People needs were assessed by the provider before using the service to ensure they were able to meet their needs. Staff recruited by the provider had been checked for their suitability to work with people who used the service.

Staff received ongoing training to make sure their knowledge and skills were relevant. Where needed, people had drinks prepared and meals made to maintain their nutritional needs. Staff told us, with permission, they had contacted other healthcare professionals to support of people’s ongoing health needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and care staff had developed familiar relationships. People were supported to follow their routines or care preferences and were involved in choices about their care and support. Staff were careful to promote people right to privacy and dignity by being mindful when providing personal care. People’s lifestyles and personalities were respected by staff.

People’s care plans included their assessed needs and personal histories and choices. Changes to needs were identified in reviews of their care ,and where needed, changes to their care plans had been made. Staff used a mix of paper and electronic records to help ensure people’s needs were met. People who were not able to communicate verbally were supported by staff who knew how to observe body language or other methods to understand how best to communicate with them.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place and this had been used where a complaint had been made. Changes had been made to working practices as a result of feedback from people and staff.

End of life care was provided and people’s relatives had provided positive feedback to the provider of the care and attention staff had provided.

The registered manager was supported in their role and people and staff were positive about their experiences of the service received. There were processes in place to monitor the quality of care people had received and staff performance was checked. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and had worked closely with the provider to provide a safe and reliable service.

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 20 April 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 last inspection on 30 June 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to their recruitment practice and quality monitoring of the care provided. We received a provider action plan following that inspection where the provider told us when they would meet the relevant legal requirements and we found on this inspection that action had been completed.

People told us that they were relaxed and felt safe in their home when staff were with them. Staff told us about how they kept people safe. People’s risks had been identified and plans showed the steps staff needed to take to ensure people were at low risk of harm or injury. People who had support with their medicines had them administered when needed and by staff who were trained and competent to do so.

Staff had received training to ensure their skills and knowledge reflected the needs of the people they cared for. Staff were supported with regular supervisions and the management team checked that staff were working as expected. Where people needed support with their meals they told us they were happy that staff gave them a choice or provided the assistance they needed to enjoy their meal. People were supported 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. People told us they arranged their own healthcare appointments as required, however care staff would help with telephone calls and reminders if needed.

People knew the staff and told us they were provided with a personalised service in their home. Staff spent time chatting and getting to know people while providing care. People felt the care they had received met their needs and had been able to tell staff how they wanted their care on each call. People felt the staff were considerate and supported them in maintaining their dignity.

People’s views and decisions about their care had been recorded and were changed when needed. People knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable to do this should they need to and felt these would be dealt with. Information was provided to people who used the service should they wish to raise a complaint.

People, their family members and staff felt the management team were accessible and could speak with them to provide feedback about the service. The management team had kept their knowledge up to date. The provider ensured regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of the care that people received and to action where improvements were needed.

Ellarose Homecare Services Limited provides personal care for people in their own home. There were 11 people using the service when we inspected and 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received positive feedback about the service with praise received from all the people and their relatives with whom we spoke. It was clear people’s experience of the care provider was very positive and people told us the care met their individual needs. Staff and the registered manager were motivated to provide a personalised and caring service. However, staff recruitment processes were not robust and the necessary checks had not been undertaken to ensure staff had been recruited safely. We found the processes which were in place were not followed, which led to unsafe recruitment practices. These included not seeking references from previous employers, not gaining a full employment history and accounting for any gaps in employment.

There were limited processes and systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. There was no oversight available to the provider to be able to judge the service was being well run and the quality of care and safety of people was assured.

People told us they felt safe whilst staff were providing care in their home and we found risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and suitable plans of care put in place. There were enough staff to ensure that people had their calls at the agreed time and by the required number of staff. People who required support with their medicines were confident that staff helped them in receiving the medicines when required.

Staff received training when starting the agency by completing the care certificate, and enrolling on a nationally recognised qualification in care. People we spoke with were very complimentary about the staff who cared for them. Where people needed support with their meals they told us they were happy that staff gave them a choice or provided the assistance they needed to enjoy their meal.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People’s consent was appropriately obtained by staff when caring for them. Staff liaised with external health professionals where required and people told us they were supported to healthcare appointments as required to meet their needs.

People were provided with a personalised service where they told us time was spent chatting while care was being provided. People felt the care they received met their needs. They were also supported in maintaining their dignity and encouraged to be involved in their care needs where able.

People’s views and decisions they had made when planning or making changes to their care were listened to and recorded in care plans. People knew who they would raise concerns with and felt comfortable to do this should they need to. People told us they felt that if they had raised any concerns they would be dealt with.

The registered manager had not made regular checks to monitor the quality of the care that people received and look at where improvements may be needed. The management team had not kept their knowledge current. People felt the management team were approachable and came to see them in their homes, which people and relatives liked.

You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.