We carried out a review of the data available to us about Right at Home Portsmouth on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Right at Home Portsmouth, you can give feedback on this service.
Right at Home Portsmouth is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of inspection there were 33 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
At the time of the inspection the registered manager was on a planned absence from the service for 28 consecutive days or more. They had appointed a manager to manage the service in their absence.
People and their relatives told us they were impressed with the service and that staff were exceptionally caring. People looked forward to the carers visiting and enjoyed their company. Staff spoke with compassion and genuine warmth when referring to the people they cared for. The caring ethos of person-centred, expressed to us by the provider and manager, was echoed in the comments made by the staff. This was reflected in the care people told us they received. People appreciated the continuity of care from the same care staff who were consistent and always attended. People and their relatives had trust and confidence in the staff and management.
People and their relatives consistently told us that the support being provided was incredibly responsive to their individual needs. The service was person-centred, viewing their relationship with people using the service as a 'partnership' with emphasis on equality and diversity including cultural and lifestyle choice. The service worked in collaboration with and health and social care professionals to promote joined up care. Care plans were comprehensive with clear instructions for staff on how the person wanted to be cared for. People's interests and what was important to them was prominent in their care planning. Consent to care was agreed at every visit which allowed for choice at the time of care delivery, taking into consideration a person's preferred way of communication.
People and their relatives were confident that if they had concerns they would be dealt with appropriately. Effective systems were in place to monitor the delivery of care through feedback from people and relatives, audits, spot checks, staff observational supervision and quality assurance questionnaires. Lessons learned were documented and shared in staff meetings. People received their medicines safely in line with their preferences and by staff who knew them well. People confirmed that staff followed infection control procedures and wore gloves and aprons appropriately to prevent the spread of infection.
The provider continuously encouraged staff to develop the support they provided and to give the highest possible care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the providers policies and systems supported this practice. There was a clear focus on providing person centred care and staff understood the needs of people, their individual wishes and preferences. The provider understood the importance of social activities to people's wellbeing and had developed community resources to help people live as full a life as possible.
Staff received a comprehensive induction, refresher and specific subject training. The service promoted a learning and development culture to continually strive towards excellent care practice. The management team were open and transparent. The nominated individual and manager were passionate about supporting older people and had created a team of enthusiastic and dedicated staff. They provided good leadership and staff were clear about their role. The wellbeing of staff was viewed positively by management and was embedded within the culture of the service. Staff told us they felt valued and supported.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 29 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Right at Home Portsmouth provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people receiving care and support from the service. They were supported by 10 care staff, a manager and the nominated individual.
The service did not have a registered manager at the time of the inspection. However the manager has applied to the Commission to become the registered manager and their application was being processed. 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.
People received care that was personalised and caring from a service which promoted the importance of personalised care and followed their caring values. Staff were kind and caring. The service had received compliments from people and their relatives which demonstrated caring values were embedded within service delivery. People were involved in making decisions about their care.
People were supported to maintain their independence, privacy and dignity and preferences were included in their care plans and when people received their support with personal care.
Staff and management knew how to keep people safe from harm. Risk assessments were in place which identified risks to the environment and the level of support people required. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Safe recruitment and medicine practices were in place and followed.
People received care from regular staff who had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles.
Staff received supervision, field observations, training and an induction programme in line with approved standards of care. Staff, the manager and nominated individual, who was also the provider, demonstrated a good understanding of the legislation designed to protect people’s rights. People were supported to eat and drink well when required and external professionals were involved when deemed necessary.
People’s needs were assessed and reviewed. People received a punctual and flexible service and received care in line with their care plan and identified needs. Complaints had not been received into the service; however people were aware of how to complain and who to complain to.
People and their relatives were positive about the service and core values were embedded within the service delivery. Staff felt the manager and provider were supportive and felt confident to question practice. Audits to monitor the safety and quality of the service were being completed and questionnaires to gather people’s feedback were in the process of being introduced. The manager and provider knew when the Commission should be notified about significant events.