You are here

Archived: Synergy Homecare - Washington Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

This inspection took place between 16 and 26 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice to ensure someone would be available to speak with us and show us records.

When we last inspected the service we found the provider had breached the regulations relating to safe care and treatment because potential risks to people’s safety were not managed safely. We rated the service as Requires Improvement. Following this inspection, to reflect the improvements the provider has made, we have rated the service as Good.

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 question(s) is the service safe, responsive and well-led to at least good. We found progress had been made and the provider was now meeting the regulations. In particular, there was now a more robust risk management process in place to help keep people safe from harm.

Synergy Homecare – Washington is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of our inspection it provided a service to approximately 130 people.

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, relatives and staff described the registered manager as supportive and approachable. They told us since the registered manager had started there had been significant improvements made to the service.

The provider did not always maintain accurate records for the medicines people had been given. We found gaps in signatures on medicines administration records (MARs). A similar trend had already been identified through the provider’s own quality assurance checks and action was underway to remedy this.

People and relatives told us the service provided a good level of care. They also said staff were kind, considerate and caring. People, staff and relatives felt the service was safe.

A reliable and consistent staff team provided people’s care. People told us staff usually turned up on time. Some people said they did not always know which staff were due and at what time. The provider had set up individual arrangements with people to improve this.

The provider had effective processes so that new staff were recruited safely.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the whistleblowing procedure. They told us they did not have any concerns about people’s safety but knew how to raise them if they needed to.

Staff felt the support they received had improved. They confirmed they had regular opportunities to speak with management. They told us training had also improved.

Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and healthcare needs. People told us staff supported them to have enough to eat and drink.

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.

People’s care plans had improved since the last inspection. They were now more personalised and included detailed guidance for staff to follow about how people wanted their care provided.

People knew how to complain if required. There had been no complaints made about the service since our last inspection.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was not always safe.

Medicines records did not accurately account for the medicines people had been given.

The provider had improved the effectiveness of the risk management process.

People, staff and relatives felt the service was safe.

People said staff were reliable and consistent. New staff were recruited safely.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the whistleblowing procedure including how to report concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was effective.

Staff support systems and training opportunities had improved since the last inspection.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People were supported with their nutritional and healthcare needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us the service provided good care. They said staff were kind and caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff supported people to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was responsive.

The quality of care planning had improved since the last inspection.

Care plans were person-centred and included information about people�s care preferences.

People gave positive feedback about their care. They knew how to complain if required.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 May 2018

The service was well led.

There was now a registered manager in post.

People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

People, relatives and staff said there had been significant improvements made since our last inspection.

The provider had a structured approach to quality assurance.