Rainbow Homecare Limited

About the service

Rainbow is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care support. The service provides support to younger and older adults, people living with dementia, people with a learning disability and/or autistic people, people with mental health needs, physical disability and sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 75 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support: People were protected from the risk of abuse and potential harm. Risk was assessed, reduced and regularly monitored to keep people safe. An assessment of care needs took place before care began and the management team worked hard to put in place the right type of support for people, to ensure they could live safely and in an unrestricted way. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff asked for consent to care and respected people’s choices.

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 practice.

Right Care: People’s care was personal to them and met their individual care needs. People and their relatives told us care was personalised and it was regularly reviewed. People’s privacy and dignity was respected, and people’s independence was promoted which empowered them. Communication needs were met, and people appreciated having staff who could speak to them in their chosen language. Equality and diversity was respected and promoted. Staff were patient and treated people with kindness.

Right Culture: The staff team focused on providing people with quality care that met their needs and worked together with management and health professionals to ensure this happened. People and their relatives were pleased with the level of communication from Rainbow Homecare and felt listened to. Openness and transparency was important and regular audits were performed to monitor the service and seek feedback from people, relatives and staff. Learning and development was important to all staff as they valued having up to date skills and knowledge to support people who required care.

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 4 January 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

At our last inspection in April 2015 we found a breach of the legal requirements. This was because staff did not undertake regular training about safeguarding people and robust checks were not in place to monitor any monies spent on behalf of people. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and that they now met the previous legal breaches.

This service 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 younger disabled adults. At the time of our inspection they were supporting 74 people with personal care.

The service was safe and had practices in place to protect people from harm. Staff had training in safeguarding and knew what to do if they had any concerns and how to report them. People who used the service told us they felt safe and protected from harm.

Risk assessments were personalised and detailed. Staff had the information they needed to mitigate risks.

Staffing levels were meeting the needs of people who used the service.

Recruitment practices were safe and records confirmed this.

Systems were in place to promote the safe administration of medicines. Staff undertook training before they were able to support people with medicines.

Systems were in place to prevent the spread of infection in people’s homes; care workers had access to protective clothing and gloves.

The service documented and learned from incidents and put procedures in place for prevention.

Training for care staff was provided on a regular basis and updated regularly. Staff spoke positively about the training they received.

Care workers demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how they obtained consent on a daily basis.

People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and had a choice of food and beverages.

People were supported to have access to healthcare services and receive on-going support.

Staff demonstrated a caring and supportive attitude towards people who used the service and people and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided.

The service promoted the independence of the people who used the service and people felt respected and treated with dignity.

Concerns and complaints were encouraged and listened to and records confirmed this. Relatives of people who used the service told us they knew how to make a complaint.

The registered manager had a good relationship with staff, people who used the service and their relatives. People spoke positively about the registered manager and their management style.

The service had robust quality assurance methods in place and carried out regular audits.

We found that people's needs were assessed and they had individual care plans with risk assessments. Some care plans required updating. People and their relatives told us, 'they give good care. I'm happy with it' and "they get to know you well: it's like a family."

People told us they were happy with carers' standards of cleanliness. We found that the service had infection control policies and staff training in place. Staff were aware of when they should use protective clothing and gloves.

We found evidence that staff had previous experience in care work or were given an appropriate induction. The service employed enough staff to cover any absence. People and their relatives said "staff are good" and "they are really helpful."

Staff told us they felt supported by management. We found evidence that staff received supervision and had opportunities to discuss personal development. Staff were able to access training and further relevant qualifications.

We found that staff recorded the care they provided to an adequate standard and that records were appropriately stored. People and their relatives told us 'staff always write things down' and 'they keep records of everything they do.'

People received consistent care and told us they always had the same care workers and that they arrived on time. We reviewed four care plans and found they contained information on people's needs and support. Risk assessments were in place but those seen were not in an accessible format and did not clearly show how to mitigate or reduce risks.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. One person we spoke to, said they would not hesitate to speak out if they were worried about anything and another said 'I do feel safe when I am being cared for. That was my problem, I was not feeling safe before.'

We found that recruitment checks had been carried out. We looked at four staff files and found that the provider had established people's identity, reference and criminal records check.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the qulaity of service that people received.