You are here

Saltimmary Homecare Professionals Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 February 2019

This inspection took place on 8 January 2019 and was announced.

Saltimmary Homecare Professionals is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and people living with dementia.

Not everyone using Saltimmary Homecare Professionals receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service was providing the regulated activity of personal care support to 9 people.

The service did not have a registered manager. The service is not required to have registered manager as the provider is registered as an individual. The provider retains the responsibility to be the manager as well, being a ‘registered person’. 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.

Following the last inspection, on 26 September 2017, we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of safe, effective, responsive and well-led to at least good. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting the regulations. Recruitment practices had been reviewed and improved. The training completed by staff had been reviewed, to ensure staff had practical instruction with moving and handing, before supporting people. Practices when staff were supporting people with medicines had been reviewed to ensure the provider had oversight and had taken action when recording was not consistent. Quality assurance and monitoring systems had been put in place to support the provider to have oversight and understanding of the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the practices and systems in the service did not always support this practice.

We have made a recommendation about knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.

People felt safe. Staff knew how to report any concerns about people’s safety. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong. The provider understood their duties to report and share information.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. The provider supported staff to develop relationships with people, giving them time to provide care in a personal and compassionate way. People were supported by staff with shared interests. One person told us, “They [staff] are all caring and kind to me.” Another said, “They are always caring and listen to me. I couldn’t be more pleased with them all.”

People’s independence was promoted. People’s privacy and dignity were respected. Confidentiality was protected, with staff’s understanding and records kept securely.

People knew how to raise complaints, and were confident to do so. People and staff were involved in evaluating the service. The provider took action when opportunities for improvement were highlighted.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People were visited by the same staff, wherever possible, to give them continuity. Staff were trained to give them the right skills to support people. The provider met with staff regularly, for staff meetings or individual supervision. Safe recruitment practices were followed when taking on new staff. Staff new to the service were supported with induction which included shadowing established staff.

Risks to people were assessed and individually planned for. Risks about infection control and lone working were assessed and mitigated. People were supported to take their prescrib

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 February 2019

The service was safe.

There was enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people were assessed and planned for to keep people safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 9 February 2019

The service was not always effective.

People’s consent to care and treatment was not always in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff had the right skills, knowledge and experience to support people.

People were involved in assessments of their needs and support was delivered in line with these.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 February 2019

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.

People were involved in making day to day decisions about their care.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and were involved in regular reviews of their care.

People knew how to complain, and were confident to do so.

People received personalised care at the end of their lives.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 February 2019

The service was well-led.

A quality assurance framework supported the provider to address any areas of the service which needed improvement.

People and staff’s views on the service were surveyed. The results led to changes in the service.

Staff worked in partnership with other agencies.