We carried out a review of the data available to us about Safe Harbour Home Care (Petersfield) 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 Safe Harbour Home Care (Petersfield), you can give feedback on this service.
Safe Harbour Home Care (Petersfield) is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people living in their own homes who have a range of needs including older people, people with a physical disability, learning disability, mental health needs and people living with dementia. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 69 people were receiving personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We have recommended that the provider reviews current best practice guidance around medicines care planning. People told us they were supported by staff who knew them and their needs well. Staff had access to a range of training and told us they felt supported in their role. 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 policies and systems in the service supported this. People told us the service was reliable and that they received timely care calls with consistent staff.
People received a service that was safe. There were systems and processes in place to ensure people were protected from the risks of avoidable harm. People were protected from the risk of experiencing abuse. Staff completed regular training and understood their responsibilities. People were supported to manage their medicines safely by staff who were appropriately trained.
There was a strong person-centred culture. People and their relatives consistently praised staffs’ efforts and told us they had positive relationships with staff and received good-quality care. People were encouraged to maintain and build on their independent living skills, and staff understood the importance of enabling people to have choice and control.
People’s care plans were person-centred and reflected their preferences. People, relatives and social care professionals told us the service provided care and support that was responsive to individual needs. There was a clear complaints procedure in place, people told us they knew who to contact if they had any concerns. The registered manager acted following feedback to enhance how they recorded people’s end of life care planning wishes in more detail.
The service was well-led. We received consistently positive feedback from people, relatives and two social care professionals that service was run with positive leadership. The registered manager maintained oversight of service delivery and completed a range of audits to continually assess and monitor the care people received.
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 31 March 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.
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 response. There was a complaints process to enable people to make a formal complaint if needed.
The provider’s aims and objectives were ‘To provide high quality domiciliary care and support to enable people to remain in their own homes.’ The provision of peoples’ care was based on a clear set of values which were embedded throughout the service. People were cared for by staff who worked in a positive and open service where they were validated, supported and encouraged to raise any concerns about people.
People and staff reported the service was well–led with visible, supportive and accessible management.
The provider used a range of methods to monitor the quality of the service people received. These included seeking people’s feedback on the service during their review of care and auditing processes within the service.