Archived: HaywardCare Ltd

People’s experience of using this service:

Although quality assurance systems and processes had improved since the last inspection; audits and checks that were in place could be further reviewed and developed upon. Care records did not always contain the correct level of information required.

We recommend that quality assurance processes are reviewed.

Quality assurance questionnaires were circulated and quality reviews were taking place. These helped to establish people’s thoughts and views about the quality and safety of care they received.

Action plans were created as a measure of identifying areas of improvement and how these needed to be addressed.

People’s level of risk was assessed from the outset; risk was regularly reviewed and safely managed. Staff were familiar with the care and support people required.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm. The registered provider had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. Staff were familiar with the reporting procedures and the importance of keeping people safe.

People safely received support with their medicines. Staff completed medication training and regularly had their competency levels assessed.

There was a health and safety policy in place. This contained guidance in relation to infection prevention measures that staff needed to comply with. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE).

People received support from regular staff; staff were able to develop positive relationships with people they supported. People and relatives confirmed that staff were familiar with the tailored level of support that was required.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place. Pre-employment checks were carried out and necessary references were obtained.

Staff told us they were supported with training, learning and development opportunities. Training was up to date and staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

Principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were followed. Staff understood and respected people’s right to make their own decisions and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.

Staff provided care that was respectful, dignified and compassionate. People and relatives told us that the care and support delivered was high-quality and person-centred.

Staff were familiar with people’s likes, wishes and preferences. Care records contained specific information in relation to the tailored support people required.

The registered provider had an up to date complaints policy in place. People and relatives were familiar with the complaints procedure and told us they would feel confident raising any concerns that presented.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection service was rated ‘Good’ (report published August 2016). At this inspection we found that the registered provider continued to provide a 'good' provision of care. The evidence we reviewed and feedback we received continued to support the rating of ‘good’; there was no evidence or information from our inspection or ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection as part of The Care Quality Commission's (CQC) inspection schedule.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor all intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

HaywardCare Ltd provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in Cannock and the surrounding areas. At the time of our visit, approximately 30 people were receiving a regulated service. There was a registered manager at the service. 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 provider had a quality assurance system in place but was not completing all the necessary checks to ensure shortfalls were consistently identified and addressed.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and managed and people told us they felt safe when they were supported by staff. Staff recognised their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and were confident the manager would take action if they raised any concerns. There were sufficient, suitably recruited, staff available to meet people's needs.

People received personalised care and were happy with how the staff supported them. Staff were trained and supported so that they had the knowledge and skills to enable them to care for people in a way that met their individual needs and preferences. Staff assisted people to manage their health care needs and ensured they were referred to health care professionals if their needs changed. People received their medicine and were supported to apply any creams they needed.

People’s needs and preferences were met when they were supported with their dietary needs. Staff enabled people to follow their hobbies and interests and maintain links with the local community.

Staff gained people’s consent before providing care and support and understood their responsibilities to help people to make their own decisions. Staff treated people in a caring way, respected their privacy and promoted their independence. Relatives were involved with people’s care and support and were kept informed of people’s changing needs.

People knew how to raise a complaint and felt confident their concerns would be acted on. People were encouraged to give their feedback on the service and the provider planned to give feedback on how the information was used to make improvements where needed.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the service and felt valued and supported by the management. The manager and provider notified us of important events that occurred in the service in accordance with the requirements of their registration with us.