You are here

G&M Senior Care Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at G&M Senior Care Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

This announced inspection took place on the 10 May 2018. At the last inspection on 9 August 2017 the service was rated Requires Improvement overall.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The service offers care and support to people living with dementia, learning disabilities and mental health conditions, as well as older people and young adults with physical disabilities or sensory impairments.

Not everyone using G&M Senior Care Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At this inspection the provider was offering support to 60 people, 39 of whom were receiving personal care. This inspection was done to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider after our inspection on 9 August 2017 had been made. The team inspected the service against three of the five questions we ask about services: “Is the service well led”, “Is this service safe”, “Is this service effective.” This is because the service was not meeting some legal requirements.

No risks, concerns or significant improvement were identified in the remaining Key Questions through our ongoing monitoring or during our inspection activity so we did not inspect them. The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for these Key Questions were included in calculating the overall rating in this inspection.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe, Effective and Well-led to at least good. The provider sent us an action plan on the 3 November 2017 and agreed to have all actions in place by 14 February 2018. At this inspection we found that actions in the plan had been carried out by the provider.

At our inspection in August 2017 we found one breach of the Regulations in Safe care and treatment in the Safe key question. This was because the provider did not assess all the risks to people’s welfare and there was not sufficient staff guidance to mitigate those risks. We found the provider had undertaken assessments of the risks and staff had guidance to support them to work with people in a safe manner.

The provider also did not have safe processes for the administration and recording of medicines. At this inspection we found that the provider had ensured all care staff who administered medicines received training to do so and checked and audited to ensure care staff were adhering to the medicines management procedures. Where mistakes were found these were addressed with the individual care worker and common errors were addressed with the care staff team.

In the Effective domain we made a recommendation about working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. and a second recommendation relating to obtain training for staff who worked with people who behaved in a way that challenged the service. We found that staff had received training in both these areas and the provider was ensuring that people’s permission was sought prior to offering care.

In the Well-led domain, we had found in August 2017 that the provider did not have sufficient auditing, checking and tracking processes in place to ensure the service being offered was effective and of a good quality. During this inspection we found the provider now had an oversight of safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and near misses. In additions checks and audits identified errors and omissions and addressed these concerns with the care staff.

There was a registered manager in post, however we were informed the week of the inspection that the registered manager had resigned but was still available to speak with and would co

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was safe. The provider undertook assessments to identify the risks to people. Risk assessments contained guidance for care staff to mitigate the risk of harm.

The provider had systems in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff had received medicines administration training and the management team undertook checks and audits to identify and address errors.

Staffing levels were assessed by the management team who ensured they had suitably experienced staff to meet people�s support needs. The provider followed their recruitment procedure to ensure the safe recruitment of staff.

The care staff had received safeguarding adults training and could tell us how they would recognise and report concerns. The registered manager demonstrated they reported safeguarding adult concerns appropriately and kept an overview of safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents and near misses.

The care staff demonstrated they understood the importance of good practice in relation to infection control. People and relatives confirmed care staff used protective equipment.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was effective. Care staff had received training to support them to undertake their role. This had included training about managing behaviour that challenged the service and the Mental capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The provider was working in line with the MCA and obtained people�s consent prior to offering a service. People�s representatives were asked to provide evidence they could legally act on people�s behalf, before they undertook this role.

The provider undertook a thorough assessment with people prior to offering them a service. Reviews of the service took place on a quarterly basis and in response to changing circumstances.

Care staff and the management team supported people to access appropriate health care. Staff ensured people remained hydrated and reported to the provider if people were not eating and drinking well.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was well led. The provider had made improvements regarding their quality assurance and monitoring systems and these were more effective and consistently used to assess and monitor the quality of the service.

People, staff and relatives were encouraged to contribute their views and opinions about the service and there was an open, transparent and inclusive culture within the service.

The provider worked in partnership with health care professionals on behalf of people using the service to help provide seamless care to people.