You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

This inspection was completed on 27, 28 and 29 November 2017 and was announced.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to ensure we would be able to meet with people where they were receiving the service. At the time of the inspection, the service was supporting 159 people in their own homes.

Not everyone using DoCare receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with the regulated activity of ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post at the service; 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The previous inspection was completed in March 2016 and there was one breach of regulation at that time. Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do to improve the key question Safe and to meet the requirements of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements to meet the requirements of this regulation. A new office based on call system had been introduced from 06.00am until 23.00pm and at weekends to monitor and manage visits. There had been three missed calls in approximately 5500 visits in this timeframe. A contingency plan was in place and people were assessed by risk in an emergency situation.

The service was safe. A new management team had been introduced to manage care calls. This was being staffed from 06.00am until 23.00pm. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment. People’s medicines were being managed safely. People told us they felt safe.

People were receiving effective care and support. Staff received training which was relevant to their role. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and procedures in the service supported this practice. The service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).Staff supervisions and appraisals were being completed. People were supported to access health professionals. People could choose what they liked to eat and drink.

Staff told us there was an open culture and the environment was an enjoyable place to work. Staff were extremely passionate about their job roles and felt integral to the process of providing effective care to people. There was positive feedback from relatives regarding the management.

The service was caring. We observed staff supporting people in a caring and patient way. Staff knew the people they supported well and were able to describe what they liked to do and how they liked to be supported. People were supported sensitively with an emphasis on promoting their rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. Care plans were person centred to provide consistent, high quality care and support. Daily records and visit notes were detailed and contained sufficient information for staff to read and support people effectively.

The service was well led. Quality assurance checks and audits were occurring regularly and identified actions to improve the service. People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. Staff had been recruited following safe recruitment procedures.

People were kept safe through risks being identified and well managed.

Medicines were well managed with people receiving their medicines as described.

Staff reported any concerns and were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received adequate training to be able to do their job effectively.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was caring.

People received the care and support they needed and were treated with dignity and respect.

People we spoke with told us the staff were caring and kind. People were supported in an individualised way that encouraged them to be as independent as possible

People were given information about the service in ways they wanted to and could understand.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People were able to express their views about the service and staff acted on these views.

Care plans clearly described how people should be supported. People and their relatives were supported to make choices about their care and support.

There was a robust system in place to manage complaints. All people and staff we spoke with told us they would be comfortable to make a complaint. They were confident any complaints would be listened to and taken seriously.

Care plans accurately recorded people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff had information that enabled them to provide support in line with people’s wishes.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 January 2018

The service was well-led.

Staff felt supported and were clear on the visions and values of the service.

Quality monitoring systems were used to further improve the service.

There were positive comments from people, relatives and staff regarding the management team.