You are here

Westminster Homecare Limited (Aylesbury) Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 February 2019

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Aylesbury area. It is registered to provide a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and children. One hundred and fourteen people were receiving support from the service at the time of the inspection, none of these were children.

This inspection took place on 7 and 8 January 2019. It was an announced visit to the service.

We previously inspected the service in September 2017. The service was not meeting all the requirements of the regulations at that time. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions ‘safe’, ‘effective’, ‘responsive’ and ‘well-led’ to at least ‘good’. The action plan was completed and sent to us.

There had been changes to management of the service since the last inspection. A registered manager was in post. This 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 spoke positively about their care workers. Comments included “Staff are friendly and kind. Some carers are exemplary,” “Lovely staff, very charming, friendly,” “Good service and very good carers,” “I’ve had nothing but kindness from all of them” and “The carers are always very pleasant and we chat.”

Staff described improvements to the culture of the service. They told us they received good support. Improvements had been made to staff training. None of the staff had any concerns about the practices they were asked to undertake as part of their duties. They understood about safeguarding people from abuse and said they would report any concerns. People who were supported by the agency told us they felt safe.

Each person had been assessed before they received a service from Westminster Homecare Limited (Aylesbury). Care plans had improved and recorded people’s preferences and support requirements in detail. Risk assessments had been written to assess the likelihood of people experiencing any harm or injury. Measures were put in place where risks were identified, to reduce the likelihood of harm.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Some people were supported with their medicines. These were handled safely and appropriate records were kept.

Staff were recruited using robust procedures to make sure people were supported by care workers with the right skills and attributes. Staff received appropriate support through a structured induction, which included all the training the provider considered mandatory.

People told us there were inconsistencies in when their care workers arrived to support them. For example, some of the feedback we received included “Arrival times can fluctuate within two hours and they never call to say they’re going to be delayed,” “Forever late with calls” and “Staff arrive at different times, you never know where you are. Always more than half an hour late.” We have made a recommendation to improve this area of practice.

People knew how to make a complaint. Their experiences of doing this varied. We have made a recommendation about monitoring responses to people’s complaints and concerns.

There were improvements to monitoring of the service, to ensure people received appropriate care and support. This included spot checks of care workers’ practice, care reviews and audits.

Records were maintained to a good standard and staff had access to policies and procedures to guide their practice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 February 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

Some people experienced late visits to their homes, which meant there were inconsistencies with when their personal care was provided.

People were protected from harm because staff received training to be able to identify and report abuse. There were procedures for staff to follow in the event of any abuse happening.

People�s likelihood of experiencing injury or harm was reduced because risk assessments had been written to identify areas of potential risk.

People were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes because robust recruitment procedures were used by the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 February 2019

The service was effective.

People received safe and effective care because staff were appropriately supported through a structured induction, supervision and regular training.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and day to day lives.

People received the support they needed to keep healthy and well.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 February 2019

The service was caring.

People were supported to be independent.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and protected their privacy.

People were treated with kindness, affection and compassion.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People�s preferences and wishes were supported by staff and through care planning.

People knew how to make a complaint, if required. Their experiences of raising concerns or complaints varied.

The service responded appropriately if people�s needs changed, to help ensure they remained independent.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 February 2019

The service was well-led.

People were cared for in a service which was open and transparent when things went wrong.

The provider monitored the service to make sure it met people�s needs safely and effectively.

The registered manager knew how to report any serious occurrences or incidents to the Care Quality Commission. This meant we could see what action they had taken in response to these events, to protect people from the risk of harm.