You are here

Archived: Bigod Care Limited

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 25 September 2014
Date of Publication: 16 December 2014
Inspection Report published 16 December 2014 PDF | 87.43 KB


Inspection carried out on 25 September 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by a single inspector. As part of our inspection we spoke with eight people who were receiving support, two relatives, the manager, and four staff working at the service. A registered manager was in post at this service. We looked at the support plans for five people. We used the evidence collected during our inspection to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual activities were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that people�s rights were protected by appropriate consideration and use of the Mental Capacity Act(2005).

Is the service effective?

We saw that members of staff had a thorough knowledge of people's individual health and wellbeing needs. People had a positive relationship with the staff who supported them.

The care and support plans were personal to each individual and were reviewed on a regular basis. Assessments of any potential risks to people had been carried out and measures put in place to reduce risks.

Staff told us they received a very good level of training and felt well equipped to undertake their role at the service.

Is the service caring?

The people we spoke with told us that staff supported them in a caring way. One person said, �They are wonderful carers�. Another person said, �The staff are absolutely brilliant. I can talk to them at any time."

Staff demonstrated a thorough knowledge and sensitive understanding of the needs of the people they supported.

People�s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People�s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's individual physical, emotional, psychological and social care and support needs were assessed and met.

Staff ensured they gained consent from people before they offered them care and support, and acted in accordance with their wished. One person said, �Consent and respect, they are just the norm. Staff always ask me first.� Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People's needs and care plans were regularly reviewed by the staff. Support plans included information on people's likes and dislikes and their preferences to ensure that care and support was delivered taking into account their preferences.

Is the service well led?

The service had a registered manager in place.

Staff told us they felt very well supported by the manager. They received frequent informal advice and support. They did not receive regular formal supervision and appraisals.

Staff felt well trained to safely do their job. They told us they enjoyed working for the service provider. One member of staff said, �If I have any problems and I am unsure, I contact the office. They are always very helpful."

There was a clear complaints procedure in place. People told us they were confident to raise any concerns or complaints they had with staff and managers.

The provider had effective quality assurance and audit systems in place to monitor the service and ensure improvements were made where necessary.