You are here

Georgina House Domiciliary Care Agency Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The inspection took place on 3 July 2017 and was announced.

Georgina House Domiciliary Care Agency provides a domiciliary care service to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection they were providing a service to 32 people.

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.

We have made a recommendation about the management of medicines. This was because people had received their medicines as prescribed however associated records were not consistently or robustly completed.

The service had procedures in place that minimised the risk of employing people not suitable to work with those that used the service. The provider understood the importance of inducting, training and supporting staff and this was robustly delivered.

The provider was keen to ensure people were happy with the service they received and encouraged an open, communicative and proactive culture. The registered manager regularly delivered care and support to people whilst working alongside staff which ensured accessibility and transparency. Staff told us they felt supported, were happy in their roles and worked well as a team.

People received care and support from staff that were kind, considerate and respectful. They understood the importance of empowerment and worked in a way that ensured people were in control of the decisions made in relation to the care and support they received.

Staff had a good understanding of how to maintain people’s dignity and respected their choices, likes and preferences. Support was provided in a collaborative way that meant people’s independence was promoted, encouraged and supported.

Procedures were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse and staff had knowledge of these. The risks to individuals had been identified, assessed and managed. Accidents and incidents, although few, had been recorded and appropriately actioned.

The CQC is required to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. Staff had received training in this legislation and had good knowledge of its application.

People had been involved in the planning of their care when they first started to use the service. The care and support delivered was as planned and met people’s needs in a person centred and unhurried manner. However, care plans did not always demonstrate the individualised care people received.

Where required, staff assisted people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs. They respected people’s choice in regards to nutritional needs and prepared food to people’s liking. Staff had a good understanding of people’s health needs and assisted as required.

The service was well managed and the registered manager had a complete overview of it. Due to their regular contact with people who used the service, relatives and staff, the quality of the service was closely monitored and assessed. This also made the registered manager easily accessible, approachable and in a position to quickly manage any concerns people may have.

The people that used the service, and all others we spoke with, told us they would recommend the service. People received consistent care due to the same staff being in attendance. The service was reliable and caring. People spoke highly of the kindness of staff and the registered manager’s ability to ensure a good quality service was received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was safe.

People told us that they felt safe when receiving care and support from the service.

The risks to those that used the service, and the delivery of care and support, had been identified, assessed and managed.

People told us that staff arrived as agreed and stayed for the allocated amount of time. The service was reliable and no missed visits had occurred.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was effective.

People benefited from receiving care and support from a provider that understood the positive impact well trained and regularly supported staff had.

The service adhered to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and staff had received training in this.

Where required, people’s nutritional needs were met by staff that adhered to people’s personal choices and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was caring.

People spoke of staff that were empathetic, respectful and kind. They told us that staff never rushed them and that they were patient.

Staff understood the importance of empowerment and encouraged and supported people to make their own decisions and remain as independent as possible.

People had been involved in planning the care they wished for and told us this was what was delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were met in a person centred manner by staff that had knowledge of them, had time to deliver individual care and respected people’s choices.

The provider was accommodating and flexible in delivering the service. People’s needs were reviewed and changes made to the care and support they received as required.

The service had a complaints policy in place and people felt confident any concerns would be promptly and appropriately managed by the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 July 2017

The service was well-led.

The culture of the service was open and communicative. Staff felt supported and effective team work was in place.

The registered manager had a complete overview of the service and regularly and consistently monitored and assessed the quality of it.

People told us they were happy with the service they received and that they would recommend it.