• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Holistic Community Care - Bexley Branch

Unit 5 Howbury Technology Centre, Thames Road, Crayford, Kent, DA1 4RQ (01322) 556560

Provided and run by:
Holistic Community Care Limited

All Inspections

3 March 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with twelve people who used the service or their relatives to check whether the provider had made improvements following our previous inspection in relation to the timing of visits and consistency of staff. The majority of people we spoke with were happy with the service they received. One person told us about the staff, "they are very caring, very pleasant and conscientious. I can't complain". Another person told us "I have always had good care. The carer and I are like friends, she understands my needs". Most people told us their carers arrived on time, and that they knew which carer was planned to deliver their care. Some people told us they felt the provider had made some improvements in relation to staffing.

We checked to see whether the provider had taken action following our previous inspection and found that the provider had made the required improvements. People's care needs were assessed and care was appropriately planned and delivered. We found from a variety of sources that care staff were in most cases reliable and delivered care in accordance with people's needs. We found care rotas had been planned to ensure people received a consistency of care. The provider had also improved their quality assurance systems which now included telephone spot checks, electronic call monitoring, a customer survey, responses to complaints and observational spot check on care staff.

15, 21, 22 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke to some people who used the service and some relatives to find out about their experiences of the care they received. When asked for their opinion of the quality of the service, people's responses were mixed. For example, some people told us it was "very good", "good", and "brilliant", whilst other people commented "it's not the best", "It's alright", "just about adequate" and "not consistent". Several people felt the quality of the care staff was fine, but the way the agency organised the service caused issues. For example, one person's relative said 'I have no worries with the carers just the admin issues need improving".

People told us they were sometimes involved in assessments and care planning, and that they received appropriate care. People also told us they were satisfied with the way they were supported with their medication. However, they said there were sometimes inconsistencies with the staff that cared for them and the timings of their visits.

We found the provider had made improvements to care assessments and assessing risks since our last inspection, as well as improvements to staff support and training. We also found the provider managed people's medication adequately. However, there were problems with the timing of visits and the consistency of care staff, and the provider's quality assurance processes were not sufficiently robust.

1 March 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service and some people's relatives we spoke with told us in general they were satisfied with the care provided to them, except at the weekends where the care often fell short of people's expectations. For example, people told us the care at weekends was inconsistent, some calls were missed and they felt some weekend care staff were rude. Overall people felt their care needs were met and they were satisfied with the support they received from the agency's office. People told us they were involved in care assessments and care plan reviews and they were able to state their preferences.

We found that people were involved and were able to make decisions about their care. People were in general treated with dignity and respect. Care staff encouraged people to maintain their independence. People's needs were assessed and care was planned to meet their needs. Some risk assessments lacked detail and in some areas risks were not assessed to ensure staff maintained their safety. The provider had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle-blowing. Staff recruitment was satisfactory. Staffing levels were inadequate at the weekends to ensure a quality service was provided. Staff were not always appropriately supported and there were shortfalls identified with training and supervision. The provider maintained records which ensured people received appropriate care.

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with seven people who used the service and their relatives about the quality of care provided by the agency. In particular we spoke to people who required support at the weekends to check the quality of care was sufficient at that time of the week.

In general the majority of people we spoke with were complimentary of the service. People told us their carers were courteous and polite and they were treated with dignity and respect. People who used the service told us the carers regularly offered them choices. People told us when their regular carer was unavailable, there was always cover provided which was of similar quality. People told us the care provided to them at the weekends was of the same quality as during the week, even when different carers assisted them.

People told us they felt staff knew their care needs and they had a copy of their care plan in their house which staff could check. People told us their carers generally had enough time to complete their tasks and carers did not leave until all their jobs were completed. One person told us the agency were very helpful on one occasion when they had made a complaint. Another person told us they had been able to change carers when their original carer had been unreliable.

Some people who used the service were aware that the agency undertook spot checks on its carers to see if staff were arriving on time and completing care tasks correctly. Other people were not aware if these checks had taken place. The majority of people told us the agency called them or their next of kin on occasions to check they were happy with the quality of care provided.

30 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were happy and satisfied with the service. They told us they were involved in the planning of their care and support services and that they were kept well informed. One person said- "the service is excellent'; another said 'never had any reason to complain". Another person we spoke with said that the carers who helped him- 'really cared. Nothing is too much of a work for them.'

However, many people also mentioned that the care provided on weekends did not come up to the expected standards. They said that the workers covering on weekends rushed through their work, left tasks unfinished and did not seem as well trained as their regular support workers.