You are here

Archived: Butterfly Home Help Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 February 2016

This inspection took place on 8 December 2015 when we visited the office of the provider. We spoke with people who used the service, their relatives and external health professionals on 9 and 10 December 2015.

This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours' notice. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to make sure a registered manager would be available to support our inspection, or someone who could act on their behalf. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. This 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 were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Some people's care needs meant that two staff were required to provide personal care, and this was provided as needed.

People were supported to take their medicines if needed, and staff had received training to support people safely. Where there had been errors or incidents, these were reported and acted upon, and appropriate action was taken.

Staff received an induction when they started in their roles. They were supervised on a regular basis, with planned supervision sessions and 'spot' checks by senior staff that were unannounced.

People were asked for consent before care was provided and this was documented. Staff told us they always assumed people were able to make decisions and choices about their care.

The service was responsive to people's individual needs and wishes. People were cared for by kind, respectful and attentive staff. They and their relatives were given opportunities to be involved in the development of individual care plans.

The registered manager and the management team assessed and monitored the quality of care. They encouraged feedback from people, which was used to make improvements.

People told us the service was well managed and they felt they could approach the management team if they had any concerns or complaints. There was a process in place so that people's concerns and complaints were listened to and acted upon.

Inspection areas



Updated 5 February 2016

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who provided their personal care.

People were protected against the risks of potential abuse. Staff had received training and understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe from harm.

Recruitment procedures ensured that relevant checks were completed so that staff were suitable to work for Butterfly Home Help.



Updated 5 February 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who undertook training to develop the skills and knowledge they needed to meet people's needs.

People's health care needs were monitored and changes in their health or well-being prompted staff to refer to the GP or other health professionals.

People were encouraged to make choices and decisions about the care and support they received.



Updated 5 February 2016

The service was caring

People spoke positively about the care they received.

People were treated with kindness and respect.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and wishes and responded accordingly.



Updated 5 February 2016

The service was responsive.

People had a plan of care and when changes to people's support was needed or requested, these were made promptly.

People felt able to raise concerns and expressed confidence that actions would be taken to address their concerns appropriately.

Staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and preferences.



Updated 5 February 2016

The service was well-led.

The management team provided strong leadership, direction and support.

There were clear reporting structures in place and staff were aware of their responsibilities and accountabilities.

People and those important to them had the opportunity to feedback their views about the quality of the service they received.