You are here

Archived: Future Home Care Leicester Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 February 2016

We carried out our inspection on 14 and 18 December 2015. The inspection was announced on both days.

The service provides support to adults with a learning disability to live independently in the community. They were 11 people using the service at the time of our inspection. Most of the people who used the service had limited verbal communication.

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 felt safe at Future Home Care. This was because staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and how to report any concerns about people’s safety.

There were enough staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

People were not deprived of their liberty. Staff sought people consent before they provided care and treatment. Staff understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to their work. They supported people in accordance to the MCA.

People were supported with their nutritional and health needs. They had access to a variety of healthy meals that they told us they enjoyed. They also had prompt access to healthcare services when they needed them.

We observed that staff supported people in a caring manner. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity, and were knowledgeable about ways to ensure that people’s privacy and dignity were protected.

People did not all feel that they mattered because their support was not always centred on them. People did not always feel that staff acted on their views.

The provider had effective procedures for monitoring and assessing the quality of service that promoted people’s safety and continuous improvement of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 February 2016

The service was safe.

Staff understood and practised their responsibilities of how to keep people safe and report concerns.

Staffing deployment was effective to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 February 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported to have a choice of food and drinks.

People’s liberty was not deprived. Staff supported people in accordance to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People had prompt access to relevant healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 February 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with compassion and kindness.

Staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of people they cared for.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted by staff.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2016

The service was not consistently

responsive.

People were supported to take part in a choice of activities.

Care was not always provided in a person centred manner.

People did not consistently feel that staff listened to them and responded to their concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 February 2016

The service was well-led.

The service and project managers were easily accessible and approachable.

The managers used information from previous investigations to drive high quality in the service.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.