You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

UR Hands Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people in their own homes to enable them to maintain their independence. At the time of our inspection five people were receiving support with live in care or personal care.

The inspection was announced and took place on 14 and 16 June 2017.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and understood how to respond appropriately to any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people and the environment had been assessed and identified hazards which people may face. They provided guidance for staff to manage any risk of harm.

Staff had been recruited in to their roles safely. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s care and support needs. Staff had undergone appropriate checks before commencing their employment to ensure they were safe to work with people. Medicines were not currently administered as part of people’s care at this time, but the systems were in place to enable this to happen safely should the need arise.

Staff members had induction training when joining the service, as well as regular on-going training. The service had a robust training system that was based upon the specific needs of the people receiving support. Staff also received regular supervision.

People’s consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met.

People and relatives were happy with the support they received with food and drink. People told us that staff were able to support them with access to health appointments when necessary.

Staff supported people in a caring manner. They knew the people they were supporting well and understood their requirements for care. People told us their privacy and dignity was respected and felt that the provision of care had enabled meaningful relationships to be forged between them and staff.

Care plans had been written with people's involvement to ensure they were reflective of their needs, wishes and preferences and were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they were accurate and up-to-date. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to use it. Any complaints made were dealt with appropriately.

People, relatives and staff were positive about the leadership at the service. They felt well supported and were able to approach the registered manager whenever they needed to. Quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action was needed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of the principles of safeguarding, and used this knowledge to protect people from harm.

Where risks to individuals were identified, risk assessments were in place to minimise any adverse effects from these.

Staffing arrangements meant there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and the service followed robust procedures to recruit staff safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had appropriate skills and had received the training they required to perform their role.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff were aware of their responsibilities to always act in a person’s best interests.

Staff provided people with support with meals where required.

People’s health needs were monitored and reviewed and advice sought from healthcare professionals as and when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was caring.

People were happy with the care provided and had good relationships with staff.

Staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of the people they were supporting. People were treated with respect.

Systems were in place to make sure staff had all the information they needed to meet people’s assessed needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care.

People had their needs assessed and staff knew how to meet them. The service was flexible in the way it provided care.

There was an effective complaints procedure in place. Concerns and feedback were discussed with staff to identify lessons learned and improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 July 2017

This service was well led.

The service was led by a registered manager who had vision and values that were shared by staff, for the development of the service.

There was an open and positive culture at the service.

Systems were in place to ensure people and staff were supported by the management.

Quality control systems were in place to ensure care was delivered to a good standard and areas for development and improvement were identified.