You are here

Alina Homecare Specialist Care - Southampton and Hampshire Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

Alina Homecare Southampton and Hampshire is a domiciliary care service which provides support and personal care to people in their own homes. This service also provides care and support to people living in ‘supported living’ settings, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service supported people with a range of needs including people with mental health needs, learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Not everyone using Alina Homecare Specialist Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.

At the time of the inspection Alina Homecare Southampton and Hampshire was providing personal care to 62 people in the community across Hampshire and Wiltshire.

The service had 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.

People receiving care from Alina Homecare were protected from the risks of neglect and abuse. Staff had a good awareness of signs of abuse, people’s risks and vulnerabilities and how to report issues.

People’s risks had been assessed and robust management plans were in place to reduce the risks of harm to people. Plans gave specific and detailed guidance to staff on how to safely support people.

The service had challenges with staff vacancies, however they managed this safely and were actively recruiting staff. Recruitment processes were robust.

People were supported to manage their medicines safely. People were protected from the risks of infection. Staff were encouraged to report incidents and consistently told us the provider fostered an open reporting and learning culture.

People’s individual needs and preferences were assessed. People’s support was provided in line with their assessed needs. People were supported to access health services and were referred to other professionals as needed. The service worked with other agencies to ensure people had effective care.

Staff were skilled and knowledgeable. The service ensured staff had a robust induction and training programme. Staff had a good understanding of mental capacity, people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

People were supported to eat a healthy and balanced diet, and to develop cooking skills where they were able. People at risk of malnutrition, dehydration or choking were supported appropriately by staff to reduce these risks.

Staff were compassionate and caring. Staff spoke with people as equals and were respectful of people’s privacy and dignity. People’s information was treated confidentially.

People were supported to communicate their wishes and express their views. Staff knew people well and had formed good relationships with them.

The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. People’s independence was promoted, people were supported to achieve their aspirations and people’s achievements were celebrated.

People were supported to feed back, make complaints or raise concerns. Complaints were responded to appropriately and the service worked to improve on areas of negative feedback.

The registered manager had appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to manage the service. The provider and the service had robust assurance processes which reviewed the quality of care and records. Improvements were identified and acted upon.

Staff consistently told us that the managers of the service were visible, supportive and encour

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse by knowledgeable staff.

People�s risks were fully assessed and people�s support plans gave detailed guidance to staff in how to minimise these risks.

Recruitment processes were robust and there were sufficient staff to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service is effective.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

People had access to health services and the service worked with other agencies to ensure continuity of care.

Staff understood mental capacity, people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff helped people achieve their ambitions.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service is caring.

Staff knew people well and had a good rapport.

Staff were caring, respectful and treated people as equals.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected, and information was treated confidentially.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People were supported to participate in activities based on their preferences.

Support was responsive to people�s needs. Staff enabled people to feed back about the service and complaints were managed appropriately.

The service was developing advance care plans for end of life care decisions.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service is well-led.

The service had worked to improve communication with staff, people and families.

The manager was skilled and knowledgeable. There were a clear set of values which were reflected in how staff worked.

Expectations were clear and staff performance was managed. Staff, people and families were engaged and involved in the service.