You are here

Archived: H C S Domiciliary Care Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 January 2016

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 December 2015 and we gave the provider one days’ notice that we would be visiting the supported living project and office. The inspection was carried out by one inspector over two days. At our last inspection on 9 May 2014 the service was meeting all of the standards we looked at.

H C S Domiciliary Care provides personal care to people living at two supported living projects in Enfield. There are two residential houses next door to each other. Each person has their own room and they share communal lounges, a kitchen and laundry facilities. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people using the service. Staff provide support to people that is either on a one to one basis or one staff is shared between two people. The project is staffed 24 hours.

There was a new manager in post at the time of our inspection who has applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were well treated by the staff and felt safe and trusted them.

Staff could explain how they would recognise and report abuse and they understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Where any risks to people’s safety had been identified, the management had thought about and discussed with the person ways to mitigate risks.

People told us there were enough staff to support them properly.

The service was following robust recruitment procedures to make sure that only suitable staff were employed at the supported living projects.

Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the medicines that people they supported were taking. People told us they were satisfied with the way their medicines were managed.

People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the staff and told us they had confidence in their abilities and staff told us that they were provided with training in the areas they needed in order to support people effectively.

Staff understood that it was not right to make choices for people when they could make choices for themselves and people’s ability around decision making, preferences and choices were recorded in their care plans and followed by staff.

People told us they were happy with the support they received with eating and drinking and staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and preferences.

People confirmed that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the planning of their care and support. Care plans included the views of people using the service and their relatives. Relatives told us they were kept up to date about any changes by staff.

People and their relatives told us that the management and staff were quick to respond to any changes in their needs and care plans reflected how people were supported to receive care and treatment in accordance with their needs and preferences.

People told us they had no complaints about the service but said they felt able to raise any concerns without worry.

The service had a number of quality monitoring systems including yearly surveys for people using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders. People we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this. They felt the service took their views into account in order to improve service delivery.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 January 2016

The service was safe. People told us they felt safe with and trusted the staff who supported them.

Where any risks to people’s safety had been identified, the management had thought about and discussed with the person ways to mitigate risks.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were administered to people safely and appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 January 2016

The service was effective. People were positive about the staff and felt they had the knowledge and skills necessary to support them properly.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and told us they would always presume a person could make their own decisions about their care and treatment.

People who used the service and their relatives were positive about the staff and told us they had confidence in their abilities and staff told us that they were provided with training in the areas they needed in order to support people effectively.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 January 2016

The service was caring. People told us the staff treated them with compassion and kindness.

Staff understood that people’s diversity was important and something that needed to be upheld and valued.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of peoples’ likes and dislikes and their life history.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 January 2016

The service was responsive. People

told us that the management and staff listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

They told us they were happy to raise any concerns they had with any of the staff and management of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 January 2016

The service was well-led and p

eople we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this. They felt the service took their views into account in order to improve.

Staff were aware of the vision and values of the organisation and how to put these into practice in their day to day work with people.