• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Harbour Home Care - 5 Jacquemand Ind Est

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 5, Jacquemand Industrial Estate, New Portreath Road, Bridge, Portreath, Cornwall, TR16 4QQ (01209) 843001

Provided and run by:
Mr J R Anson & Mrs M A Anson

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

9 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Harbour Home Care is a community service that provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs in Portreath and surrounding areas of Cornwall. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs.

The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and give support with meals. Harbour Home care also provide periods of one to one outreach support to people who are living in residential homes. People are also supported to access their local community with shopping trips and other activities.

At the time of our inspection 22 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 9 September 2015. We told the provider two days before that we would be coming. This was to ensure the registered manager would be available and we were able to access the premises and information relating to the running of the serivce.

The service was last inspected in December 2013 and was found to be meeting the regulations.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe using the service and told us; “I am very happy and feel perfectly safe” and “I find the staff absolutely trustworthy.”

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 sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs. People told us; “They are marvellous,” “They are a reliable agency” and “They are flexible, always work with me when I need to change a 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 well of staff, comments included; “I would recommend them highly” and “Can’t fault them.”

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. Some people preferred to chose the gender of their carer and this was respected at all times by the agency.

Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff said of management; “They are supportive” and “We get good training.”

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Where the provider had identified areas for improvement, actions had been promptly taken to improve the quality of the service provided.

19 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the registered manager, operations manager and two members of staff. We visited two people who used the service and spoke with a further three on the telephone. We spoke with relatives.

People told us their privacy and dignity was respected.

Care plans were mainly informative although risk assessments did not guide staff on how to manage risk.

Everyone we spoke with was very positive about the service. Comments included; 'They're as good as gold', 'I'm completely satisfied' and 'They're very helpful'.

Harbour Home Care had an effective quality assurance system in place which should ensure service was maintained to a good standard and improvements made as necessary.

28 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we heard that people were being treated with dignity and respect and people's independence was encouraged. People were spoken to in a respectful way. One person told us "I respect the care and privacy I get from all the staff across the board - I am fully involved and they care about what they do."

Care plans that we looked at evidenced staff supported people to make their own choices about what they had for lunch, what activities they took part in and what they needed support with. Staff knew exactly how each person communicated which meant people's wishes were understood and respected.

Records that we looked at evidenced that people were involved in choosing how and when they wanted their care and support. This indicated that people were involved in planning their care on a daily basis.

A family member told us "I found everyone very helpful and kind" and another said "very punctual and very smart - could not have been more friendly. Professional at all times. Their care exceeded our expectations."

During the inspection we were unable to evidence that the provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse. The staff we spoke to were unable to demonstrate an understanding about the Mental Capacity Act and lacked knowledge around the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that people who used the service were not protected from abuse and did not experience care that met their needs.