You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 July 2017

We inspected Passion for Support Limited on 3, 4 and 6 July 2017. We gave the provider short notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies to make sure the registered manager can be available.

This was the first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission in February 2016 following a move to new office premises.

Passion for Support Limited is a domiciliary care agency which provides care and support services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 75 people, however only 14 of these people were receiving personal care which is the part of the service the Commission regulates. The agency provides a service to adults, older people, people living with dementia, people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, sensory impairment and people with mental health needs.

There was a registered manager in post, who was also the nominated individual for the Company. 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.

People and relatives we spoke with were unanimous in their praise of the service provided and the staff. Staff were carefully matched to individuals which meant people received support from a small group of staff who knew them well. People told us staff were patient and kind and enabled them to do things at their own pace. All calls were a minimum of one hour and people said staff arrived on time and stayed the full length of the call, often doing extra jobs if they had any spare time. Medicines management was safe which helped ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Our discussions with staff showed they knew people well. Staff were recruited safely and told us their induction and shadowing was comprehensive and prepared them for their roles. We saw staff received the training and support they required to meet people’s needs. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing.

People’s care records provided detailed information about their needs and focussed on what people could do for themselves as well as the support they required from staff. Risk assessments showed any identified risks had been assessed and mitigated. We saw people had been involved in their support plans and reviews. There was full information about people’s lives which included important relationships, life history and any interests, likes and dislikes. People’s nutritional needs were met.

People we spoke with raised no concerns but knew the processes to follow if they had any complaints and were confident these would be dealt with.

People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and the way the service was run. They told us communication was very good. They told us about regular checks the registered manager and service co-ordinator carried out to make sure people were happy with the service. We saw systems were in place to monitor the quality of service delivery, however the registered manager recognised the recording of these processes needed to improve and had taken steps to make these improvements over the coming months. People, relatives and staff all said they had and would recommend the service to other people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 July 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines management was safe and records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff recruitment processes helped ensure staff were suitable to work in the care service. People received their calls on time and for the correct duration.

Safeguarding systems helped protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were properly assessed and mitigated.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 July 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had received the training and support they required for their job role and to meet people’s needs.

People’s rights were protected because the registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received support to ensure their healthcare and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 July 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and maintained by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and support plans were person-centred and reflected people’s needs and preferences.

A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to make a complaint and were confident it would be dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 July 2017

The service was well-led.

Systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. Plans were in place to improve the recording of these processes.

There was an open and inclusive culture led by the registered manager and endorsed by the staff who were willing and committed to continually improving the service.