You are here

Domiciliary Care Service Good

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 September 2017

The inspection took place on 29 June 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides domiciliary care and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office.

Leicester City Council’s Reablement Service is a domiciliary care service which provides short-term personal care and support to people in their own home following discharge from hospital or whilst residing within the community. At the time of our inspection 109 people were receiving personal care and support from the service.

There was 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.

The rehabilitation of people was seen as a primary objective of the Leicester City Council Domiciliary Care Service. People received care and support that was exceptionally well planned and carried out to meet their individual requirements. This included collaboratively working with other professionals to meet people’s specific requirements. People’s care and support was reviewed with them to make sure that their goals and aspirations were being met and that they were satisfied with their support. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and there were opportunities for them to provide feedback. The provider responded to any complaints received and took action to make improvements where this was required.

People received care from staff that was compassionate kind and supportive. People’s independence was promoted and staff actively encouraged people to retain or regain their skills. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and involved them in decisions about their care. Staff built relationships with the people they supported based on information they had gained about things that mattered to them.

People felt safe with the support they received. Staff knew how to help people to remain safe and what action to take should they have concerns about a person being at risk of abuse or harm. Staff had assessed risks associated with people’s care and support. Staff had guidance and procedures to follow to make sure people received support in the event of an accident, injury or emergency. The provider had ensured communication with staff had been improved. Staff had been provided with individual hand held devices which allowed them to receive individual communications about the people they cared for, their training and ensured their safety when working alone. People received their medicines as prescribed and safe systems were in place to manage people’s medicines.

Recruitment procedures ensured suitable staff were employed to work with people who used the service. Staff told us they had received training that had helped them to understand and support people’s individual needs. Staff were aware of people’s eating and drinking requirements and took action where they were concerned about people’s health.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were aware of people’s capacity to make decisions and people were asked for their consent before care and support was undertaken.

People, their relatives, healthcare professionals and staff all highly commended the service. There were open channels of communication and the registered manager was open, supportive and available. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their role and used healthcare information to drive improvements in the service. The provider had recruited a suitable number of staff to make sure that people received the care they required when they needed it.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities which included working to the provider’s aims and objectives. Th

Inspection areas



Updated 21 September 2017

The service was safe.

People using the service felt safe and staff knew what to do if they had concerns about their welfare. Staff supported people to manage risks, and provided care at the times that had been agreed. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Staff were protected by lone working policies and procedures and a backup mobile safety system.

Medicines were safely managed and people were prompted and supported to take them in a way, and at times they were required.



Updated 21 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to support people safely and effectively. The provider and staff were aware of how to protect the rights of people who needed support to make decisions. People were encouraged to make choices and decisions about their lifestyles, and staff sought consent before providing personal care. Staff had completed training essential to providing safe care, and supported people to regain their abilities to care for themselves. They had sufficient to eat and drink.



Updated 21 September 2017

The service was caring.

People thought the staff from the Domiciliary Care Service were kind and caring. People received care and support from a consistent group of staff, which encouraged caring relationships to be established.

People received a copy of their care plan and they, and when appropriate, their relatives were involved in making decisions about care. People's privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted. People�s views about their care and support had been sought and had been used in the development of their care plans.



Updated 21 September 2017

The service was responsive.

The reablement staff had liaised with people and, when appropriate, their relatives to develop individual and personalised care plans. People�s care plans had been reviewed to reflect changes in people�s needs. The provider had developed a complaints procedure which was distributed to those using the service.



Updated 21 September 2017

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in post. People were enabled to share their opinions about the quality of the service. This allowed the provider to identify where improvements were needed. Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. The management team worked in partnership with, and used analysis from healthcare colleagues to critically evaluate the service and drive improvements and efficiencies.