You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of Surecare Doncaster on 9 and 10 July 2018. We gave the registered manager short notice that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to be sure the registered manager was available.

Surecare Doncaster is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to children, younger and older adults in the Doncaster area.

The last inspection of Surecare Doncaster was on 18 July 2017. At this inspection the service was rated requires improvement. The registered manager sent us an action plan detailing the action they had taken to make sure they were meeting all regulations. At our inspection on 9 and 10 July 2018 we found the service had improved and it is now rated Good.

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.

Everyone spoken with told us they felt safe in the care of the staff at Surecare Doncaster. Based on feedback from people who used the service, relative and staff as well as our observations during this inspection, we identified there were adequate numbers of staff to safely meet people's needs.

Recruitment was appropriately managed as relevant background checks had been completed prior to employment, to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and reviewed. Medication procedures were in place including protocols for the use of 'as and when required' (PRN) medicines. Staff had received training in medicines management and medicines were audited in line with the registered provider's procedures.

Where appropriate people were being supported to manage their money, for example, whilst out on activities. We found the financial record for one person had been incorrectly recorded. The registered manager and director dealt with this inaccuracy during and after the inspection so that they could be fully confident the person was not at risk of financial abuse.

Staff completed an induction and received ongoing support through a programme of supervision, appraisal and training.

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.

Staff were pro-active in ensuring people were supported to access healthcare services and shared recent examples of working together with other healthcare professionals to deliver positive outcomes for people.

Staff were caring and compassionate and engaged people in friendly interaction, respecting their preferences and communication style. Relatives told us staff respected people's privacy and dignity and staff could describe how they managed this. People's cultural and religious needs were met by staff at this service.

People said they had their own regular care workers who knew them well and cared for them as agreed in their care plans. Each person's care plan was updated regularly and changes made where necessary.

People and their relatives felt able to report any concerns and said they were confident these would be dealt with.

The service asked people for their views and opinions about the service they had experienced via annual surveys. We saw evidence actions were put in place in response to people’s feedback.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to continually review such things as safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and near misses. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Further informati

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was safe.

Appropriate background checks had been carried out which ensured staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Risks to people had been individually assessed, monitored and reviewed.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's needs.

Medicines were safely managed.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported to have their assessed needs met by staff that had the necessary skills and knowledge. Staff received regular supervision and were given the opportunity to discuss their development and training needs.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and staff had a good knowledge of this.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on going healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was caring.

People told us they were happy with the support they received. Relatives spoke positively about the staff at all levels and were happy with the care.

Staff knew the people they supported well and were familiar with their preferences.

People's equality, diversity and human rights were respected. People's privacy and dignity was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care plans evidenced their care and support needs. Regular reviews took place and relatives were invited to be part of these meetings.

People were supported by staff to take part in community activities.

Complaints were dealt with and responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 July 2018

The service was well-led.

Quality management systems were in place to ensure continuous improvement of the service.

People who used the service, relatives and staff told us the service had effective leadership and they could approach the registered manager with any concerns.

Regular staff meetings took place and quality assurance surveys showed positive feedback about the service.