We carried out a review of the data available to us about Flexicare at Home (Head Office) 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 Flexicare at Home (Head Office), you can give feedback on this service.
Flexicare at Home is a domiciliary care agency. On the day of our inspection 66 people were receiving care and support from Flexicare at Home.
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
Staff were passionate and really cared about making a difference to the people they supported so that they could lead the best lives possible. Staff were highly motivated and skilled in their role. They had undertaken appropriate generic training and where specific needs were identified, they undertook further training to be able to meet people’s individual needs. A staff member told us, "I work here because it’s good. Everything we do and everything the manager [referring to the registered manager] does is great. The company actually do care about the clients and that makes a massive difference.”
Staff were exceptionally caring. Everyone we spoke with was extremely complimentary about the care provided by staff. People told us they were very happy with the service and had no concerns. There was a strongly embedded culture within the service of treating people with dignity, respect, compassion and love.
The service was safe. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm. Medicines were safely managed and administered by suitably trained and competent staff. Recruitment processes were of good quality although a reference for one staff member was not sought from their last employer.
The provider had a complaints procedure in place and people were aware of how to make a complaint. People and staff were regularly consulted and asked for feedback about the quality of the service.
The registered manager was clear in their desire to provide person-centred and high-quality care to everyone who used the service. People and staff felt the service was well-managed.
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.
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 19 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
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.
Flexicare at Home is a domiciliary care agency that provides support to people who live in their own home, both older people and some younger adults with disabilities. They provide a service in the West Yorkshire area to people who have a service commissioned via the local authority and to people who are privately funded. The office is situated at Calder Park in Wakefield. At the time of our inspection 66 people were receiving support from the service, including two people who received live in care.
The service is required to have a registered manager, and at the time of our inspection 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We found that people’s needs were assessed and risk assessments were in place to reduce risks and prevent avoidable harm. These were regularly reviewed to ensure they were reflective of people’s current needs.
The provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. Staff understood the different types of abuse that could occur and were able to explain what they would do if they had any concerns.
The provider had a safe system for the recruitment of staff and took appropriate steps to ensure the suitability of workers. People that we spoke with told us that staff usually arrived on time and there was a system in place to ensure cover in the event of staff sickness or absence.
There were systems in place to ensure people received their medication safely. Where staff supported people with their medicines, this was accurately recorded on medication administration records. Staff had received training in administering medication and the registered provider regularly observed staff competency in this area.
Staff completed an excellent range of training, which enabled them to provide a highly effective service. Training was refreshed annually. Additional specialist training was provided in relation to people’s individual needs where this was required, such as catheter care. Staff received regular supervision and support and were very regularly observed delivering care, to check their competence.
People were well supported with their nutritional needs and food preparation, where this was part of their care plan. People told us they were very satisfied with the support provided in this area. Staff were highly skilled and proactive in encouraging those who had difficulty with eating, and we found examples of where this had led to significant improvements in people’s well-being.
People were supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services. We saw evidence in care files of contact with other healthcare services, such as district nurses and GPs.
Staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of gaining consent before providing care to someone.
People told us that the staff who supported them were caring. People received support from a small team of people who they knew and with whom they had good relationships. People told us they felt in control of decisions about their care and also reported that their privacy and dignity were respected. Staff demonstrated a caring and empathic approach towards the people they supported, and we saw examples where staff went beyond the core tasks in the care package, where they felt the person may enjoy or benefit from something. Comments from people suggested this made them feel valued.
Everybody who used the service had a comprehensive care plan, which contained information about their needs, preferences and routines. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and people’s comments showed us that staff were flexible and responsive.
There was a complaints, suggestions and compliments procedure in place and people who used the service told us they knew how they could raise a complaint if they needed to, and that they would feel comfortable doing this. The registered provider sought people’s views about the service during regular review meetings.
There was a quality assurance system in place, which included regular observations of staff practice, care reviews and monitoring of care documentation. This enabled the registered manager to identify issues and measure the delivery of care. People we spoke with expressed a high level of satisfaction about the service they received.
We spoke with a sample of clients regarding their views of the service; we received consistently positive feedback. One client, for example, told us the service they received was "excellent" and "first class" whilst a second client described the service as being "brilliant".
We received positive feedback from relatives of clients regarding the service which had been provided. One relative, for instance, said the service had been "excellent" and another said: "I'm so pleased to have an agency like this".
We found policies and processes were in place to help ensure only appropriate staff, of good character, were employed by the service. Staff we spoke with confirmed a range of checks, such as seeking references and criminal record checks, were carried out when they were employed.
All staff we spoke with felt supported by means of an induction, on-going training and back up from management. We found supervision of staff was carried out on both an informal and formal basis. One staff member told us they received "outstanding support" from managers whilst another said: "Managers are always there".
We found a range of systems were in place to check a quality service was being delivered.
We saw that the service had an up-to-date policy regarding handling complaints, suggestions and compliments. We saw evidence which showed how feedback had been appropriately acted on by the service. Clients we spoke with had confidence in the service and felt that if any problems arose they would be dealt with promptly. One person, for example, said: "[It only takes] one phone call to sort it out".