• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

YourLife (Chippenham)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Bowles Court, Westmead Lane, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 3GU (01249) 654954

Provided and run by:
Yourlife Management Services Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about YourLife (Chippenham) 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 YourLife (Chippenham), you can give feedback on this service.

24 February 2020

During a routine inspection

About the service

YourLife (Chippenham) is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care and support to people living in Bowles Court and Waterford Court. The service supported eleven 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 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

There were enough staff to support people safety. Risk was appropriately managed and balanced with people’s independence. Staff were aware of their responsibility to identify and report potential abuse. Systems were in place to promote infection control and prevention. Medicines were safely managed. Staff received training and had their competency assessed before administering medicines.

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 were able to have support with meal preparation as part of their care package. There was a restaurant within the complex which people could use. People had access to health care provision although generally made their own appointments when needed. Staff received a range of training to help them do their job effectively. Staff felt supported and received one-to-one meetings with their line manager to discuss their performance.

People were treated with kindness and respect. There were friendly interactions and staff spoke of people fondly, with compassion. People were encouraged to give their views about their care and support. Their rights to privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.

People received a person-centred service, which was responsive to their needs. Each person had a detailed care and support plan, which reflected their needs and preferences. People were involved in the development and review of their support. Social activities were arranged to promote companionship and inclusion. People knew how to raise a concern and formal procedures were in place to manage any formal complaints.

People benefitted from a strong culture which promoted independent living. There were a range of audits to assess the quality and safety of the service. People were encouraged to provide feedback about the support they received. There was a commitment to continually improve the service and regular networking took place.

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 1 August 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.

5 June 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 5 June 2017. The inspection was announced. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to make sure the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf would be available to support our inspection.

YourLife (Chippenham) is a service which provides personal care and support to older people in their own homes. All of the people supported live in the same complex. The care service is based on site, as part of an assisted living environment. At the time of the inspection, four people used the service and they were referred to as ‘homeowners’. YourLife (Chippenham) was initially registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2016. This was the first inspection of the service.

There was a registered manager in post but they were not available on the day of the inspection, as they were on annual leave. We spoke to the registered manager on the telephone after the inspection, on 16 June 2017. 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. The registered manager is responsible for the day to day management of the agency.

Audits were taking place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. However, not all areas of the service were addressed and action plans were not always specific. The care compliance manager confirmed this had been identified and focus was being given to improve the quality auditing systems in place.

People were complimentary about staff and said they were good at their job. Records showed a range of training was arranged although not all staff had completed all topics required of them. Staff felt well supported. They received informal day to day support, as well as more formal meetings with their manager to discuss their performance. Initiatives were in place to value staff.

People were happy with the service they received and felt safe. They said staff were reliable and there were no concerns about late or missed visits. People were able to choose when they wanted their support. If they had an appointment, they could cancel or receive their visit, earlier or later than usual.

Before receiving a service, people discussed their needs and agreed what support they required. People were fully involved in developing their support plan and its review. They said any amendments were easily made. People felt confident to ask staff to undertake small tasks, which were not part of their support plan. They said they were usually supported by the same staff which enabled consistency. Positive relationships had been built.

People were appropriately supported with meal preparation if required. Alternatively, people could have a three course lunch in the restaurant on site. Within the restaurant, there was a good choice and variety of quality foods.

People were able to make decisions and manage their healthcare independently. Safe systems were in place to support people with their medicines although information about the application of topical creams was limited. This was being addressed with the use of body maps.

People knew how to make a complaint and their views of the service were regularly sought. People were confident any issues would be appropriately addressed. People confirmed their rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence were promoted. There was a clear ethos of promoting people’s independence and enabling fulfilling lives to be followed.

There were enough staff to support people effectively although some external agency staff were used. Safe practices were being followed to recruit more staff. It was expected this would enable greater flexibility and to respond to additional care packages, as required.