You are here

Safe Harbour Home Care (Petersfield) Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The inspection took place on 01 March 2017 and was announced to ensure people and staff we needed to speak with were available. Safe Harbour Home Care (Petersfield) is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes who experience dementia and to older people. They also provide a service to people with a learning disability or who are on the autistic spectrum, people with mental health issues, people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people with a physical disability or those experiencing a sensory impairment. At the time of the inspection there were 18 people using the service.

The service 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.

People told us they felt safe in the care of staff. Processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff had undergone relevant training and understood their role and responsibility to safeguard people.

Risk assessments had been completed for people and measures were in place to manage any identified risks identified to them. Staff had undertaken relevant training to ensure people were supported with their care safely. People were supported to take positive risks which allowed them to retain their independence skills but to also remain safe whilst doing so.

People and their relatives informed us care was provided at their preferred time by regular care staff. The provider carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staffs’ suitability for their role.

Staff underwent appropriate training and monitoring to ensure they remained competent at administering people’s medicines. Staff received clear guidance about people’s medicines administration.

Staff underwent an induction to their role. They undertook a range of relevant training and were supported to undertake professional qualifications. Staff underwent regular spot checks upon their work with people and supervisions to support them and ensure their work with people was of the required standard.

People informed us staff sought their consent for their care. Staff had either undertaken Mental Capacity Act training or were booked to attend this training. Staff had access to guidance in the event they needed to assess a person’s mental capacity in relation to the making of a specific decision.

People told us staff supported them with their meals and drinks where required. People’s records provided staff with clear guidance in relation to the support they needed and their food and drink preferences. Staff ensured people’s health care needs were met.

All people told us staff were very caring. People said they had formed very positive relationships with the staff. Staff understood how to develop relationships with people over time.

People told us staff listened to them and that they followed their wishes. Staff adapted their methods for involving people in their care depending on the person’s needs. Staff went out of their way to support people, for example, by supporting people where required in their dealings with other agencies.

People told us their privacy and dignity was upheld well by staff; this was monitored through spot checks on staffs’ practice.

Relevant staff had received end of life care training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to be able to support people and their families when providing end of life care.

People told us their care needs were assessed and regularly reviewed with them and any adjustments made as a result of their feedback. People’s care was personalised to meet their care needs. People’s independence was promoted in the provision of their care. Staff listened to people’s feedback about their care and made any required adjustments in respon

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was safe.

There were systems in place to ensure people were safeguarded from the risk of abuse.

Risks to people had been identified and managed safely whilst recognising people’s rights to take risks where they wished to.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff deployed to meet people’s care needs. The provider carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff’s suitability for their role.

People’s medicines were managed safely by appropriately trained staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and support to meet people's needs effectively.

People’s consent had been sought for their care and staff understood their responsibilities when people lacked the capacity to consent to their care.

People received appropriate support to ensure they ate and drank sufficient for their needs.

Staff ensured people’s health care needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was caring.

People experienced positive and caring relationships with the staff whom provided their care.

People were supported by staff to express their views and to be actively involved in decisions about their care.

Staff ensured they upheld people’s privacy and dignity during the provision of their care.

Relevant staff had received end of life care training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to enable them to support people and their families when providing end of life care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People told us their care needs were assessed and regularly reviewed with them and any adjustments made as a result of their feedback. People’s care was personalised to meet their care needs.

Staff listened to people’s feedback about their care. There was a complaints process to enable people to make a formal complaint if needed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 March 2017

The service was well led.

The provider and registered manager promoted a positive and open culture where the delivery of people’s care was based on clear values.

The service was well–led, there was visible, supportive and accessible management at all levels of the service.

The provider used a range of methods to monitor the quality of the service people received in order to improve the service provided.