You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

This inspection took place inspection on 23 and 27 February and 15 March 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

Knowsley Homecare Associates provides care and support to people living in their own homes and assists people to access the local community. At the time of this inspection the service were supporting approximately 200 people. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community [and specialist housing]. It provides a service to adults of all ages and young people.

Not everyone using Knowsley Home Care Associates receives a 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 personal care is undertaken we also take into account any wider social care provided.

A registered manager was 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.

The last inspection of the service was carried out in March 2015 and at that time the service was rated as good overall. During that inspection a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 was identified as systems were not in place to ensure that people received their medicines safely. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

We have recommended that a regular review of people’s care planning documents takes place to ensure that up to date consistent information is recorded. This recommendation was made as not all of the information in people’s care plans was consistent.

We have recommended that the monitoring systems in place are kept under review to ensure they remain effective. This recommendation was made as the current quality monitoring systems had not always identified areas of improvement.

People were supported to have choice in their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We saw that policies and guidance were available to staff in relation to the MCA.

People told us that the staff were very caring. They told us that staff met their needs and had sufficient training to enable them to carry out their job. Staff received regular support and supervision from a senior member of staff.

People, a family member and carer told us that they were listened to by the staff.

People felt safe using the service. Policies and procedures were in place in relation to safeguarding people from abuse. People’s care planning considered risks to people and in most situations, plans were in place to minimise these risks.

Procedures were in place for the effective management of infection control. Staff had access to supplies of protective aprons and disposable gloves to promote safe hygiene practices.

Recruitment practices helped ensure that only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed by the service.

Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet the needs of people supported. All staff received an induction and had the opportunity to ‘shadow’ an experienced member of staff prior to lone working with people.

People had access to and were aware of the services complaints procedure. A system was in place to manage and monitor complaints and compliments about the service.

People told us that staff always asked if they were ok and happy with the service. In addition, regular reviews and ‘spot checks’ were carried out by a member of the supervising team to help ensure that people received the care and support they required.

People were supported with their eating and drinking needs when needed.

People told us their privacy and dignity was protected. They also said they were offered choices that included who supported them.

Accidents and incidents were clearly recorded and reviewed by the registered manager to evidence any trends or patterns that may occur.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was safe.

Procedures were in place to protect people from harm.

Systems were in place to support people to take their medicines safely.

There were sufficient numbers staff to deliver care and support to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was effective.

People's needs were assessed and their wishes obtained in order to plan their care and support.

Staff received regular training to carry out their role safely.

People’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were protected by the procedures in place.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was caring.

People's privacy and dignity was respected.

Positive relationships had been formed between staff and the people they supported.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People received the care and support they required and were happy with the service,

People knew how to raise a complaint or concern about the service they received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 July 2018

A registered manager was in post.

Minor improvements were needed as to how the quality assurance of the service was monitored.

When issues were identified, the service responded quickly to make improvements.