You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

Bonney Care Agency provides care and support to people living in their own homes and in a supported living setting, so that they can live 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.

CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 15 people received support within a supported living setting and 17 people living in their own home. People’s packages of care varied dependent upon their needs. Some people received continuous support over a 24-hour period, whilst others received support for a differing number of hours each day.

Bonney Care Agency 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.

Bonney Care Agency previous comprehensive inspection was carried out by the Care Quality Commission and published on 4 August 2017. The overall rating for the service was requires improvement. This inspection has found the service has improved its rating from requires improvement to good.

People’s safety was promoted by staff who implemented the guidance as detailed within people’s risk assessments and care plans. People were supported by staff that had been recruited and had checks undertaken to ensure they were suitable for their role. People’s medicine was managed safely and people received their medicine on time.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure the service and staff could provide the support and care required. We found, people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrict way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People receiving a service within their home were encouraged to maintain their independence, whilst people living within a supported living complex were encouraged to develop skills to increase their independence and confidence.

Staff received support from the management team, through supervision and checks to ensure they were competent to carry out their roles effective. Staff received the training they needed to provide safe and effective care to people. The registered manager was committed to the training and development of staff.

People using the service and family members spoke of the positive relationships they had developed with staff. People’s comments and that of their family members evidence how these relationships had supported people, in gaining confidence to make decisions for themselves and enabling them to remain within their own home. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted and people were aware of their right to confidentiality.

People’s views, and in some instances, those of their family members had been sought to develop their care and support plans. Concerns and complaints had been investigated and documents supported this. People’s care plans had considered the individual needs of each person and the role of staff in meeting these. People residing in supported living complexes were supported by staff to access a range of activities within the community and take part in tasks of daily living.

People’s communication needs were considered when developing care plans, which included information as to how people communicated. This information was used by staff to ensure people were able to and were encouraged to express their views.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care being provided, whi

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from abuse as systems and processes were in place, which were understood and adhered too by all staff. A system of staff recruitment was in place to ensure people were supported by suitable staff.

People's safety was monitored, with risk assessments and care plans providing clear information for staff as to how people's safety was to be promoted.

Protective equipment was used to reduce the potential risk of spreading infection.

People's needs with regards to their medicine were identified within their care plans. People received the appropriate support from staff who had received training in medication.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was effective.

People and family members were involved in the assessment of their needs. People’s needs were met by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge to provide the appropriate care and support required to maintain and promote their independence.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff were supervised and had their competence to provide care regularly assessed.

People’s physical and mental health was considered and staff liaised with the health care professionals as and when required, in conjunction with family members.

People received support from staff to meet their dietary requirements, reflective of their individual needs and the level of support required.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood and implemented and people were supported to make decisions about their care and support.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was caring.

Positive and caring relationships between people using the service had developed, which had had a positive impact on people’s well-being, which people who used the service and family members confirmed.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and people were aware of their rights, which included their right to confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People's and family members contributed to the development of care plans. Care plans were fully understood and followed by staff and included information as to people’s preferences, how they communicated and how their care was to be provided.

People and family members were confident to raise concerns. Records showed concerns and complaints were investigated and the outcome communicated to the complainant.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was well-led.

A registered manager was in post. There was an inclusive approach to the management of the service. Opportunities provided for staff to comment upon and influence the service were provided through questionnaires and staff meetings.

People’s views and that of their family members were sought through questionnaires.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included a range of audits of records held within the service.

The provider had been found to be compliant when assessed by external stakeholders who had an interest in the safety and quality of the service being provided.