You are here

Kingfisher Care (Midlands) Ltd Good

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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 6 March 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 6 March 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice because the service is a small home care agency and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure they would be in.

Kingfisher Care (Midlands) Ltd is a home care agency supporting people who live in their own homes in the Leicester and Leicestershire. At the time of our inspection 21 people used the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 who used the service were safe when they received care and support. The provider had a recruitment procedure that ensured as far as possible that only staff suited to support people who used the service were employed.

People’s care plans included risk assessments of activities associated with their personal care routines. The risk assessments provided information for care workers that enabled them to support people safely but without restricting people’s independence.

Enough suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff were deployed to meet the needs of the people who used the service. This meant that home care visits were consistently made at times that people expected. Staff arranging home care visits were skilled and knowledgeable about people’s needs and ensured that people were supported by care workers with the right skills and knowledge.

People were supported to take their medicines at the right times. On an occasion that had not happened the provider took action to ensure the person was safe.

People were cared for and supported by care workers who had the appropriate training and support to understand their needs. People who used the service and their relatives spoke about staff in consistently complimentary and positive terms. Staff were supported through supervision, appraisal and training. Staff valued the support that they received.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2015. People were presumed to have mental capacity to make decisions about their care and support unless there was evidence to the contrary. Assessments of people’s mental capacity were made but had not been recorded using suitable assessment forms. The registered manager attended to this after we brought it to their attention. Staff had awareness of the MCA. They understood they could provide care and support only if a person consented to it.

Care workers either prepared meals for people or supported people to make their meals.

Care workers received training to help them understand about medical conditions people lived with. They supported people to attend healthcare appointments and to access health services when they needed them.

Care workers were caring and knowledgeable about people’s needs. People were consistently supported by the same care workers. The registered manager `matched’ care workers with people who used the service which supported them to build caring relationships.

People who used the service were involved in decisions about their care and support. They received the information they needed about the service and about their care and support. People told us they were always treated with dignity and respect.

People contributed to the assessment of their needs and to reviews of their care plans. People’s care plans were centred on their individual needs. People knew how to raise concerns if they felt they had to and they were confident they would be taken seriously by the provider.

The registered manager and care workers were well regarded by people who used the service and their relatives.

The provider had effective a