Archived: Ben Russell Carers Limited

The service had been registered in 2011 but had moved its office location in March 2015. This was the first inspection at their new address. The last inspection at the previous location in January 2014 had found the provider had met all the standards inspected. Ben Russell Carers Limited provides care and support to one person in their own home. The service was set up specifically to meet this person's needs. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

When we visited there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Health and social care professionals were very complimentary about the provider. For example one health professional said, “I have consistently been impressed by the quality and professionalism of the care provided to (person). This is a well organised team, with good leadership.”

Throughout the inspection there was evidence that the registered manager and staff delivered care to the highest standards, often undertaking additional tasks to ensure the person was protected and had a good quality of life.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had a clear knowledge and understanding of their personal needs, likes and dislikes. We observed that the staff took the time to talk with the person throughout our visit. They had developed a relationship which was caring and supportive. They offered care that was kind and compassionate; they respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff had been recruited safely and their induction involved both training and shadowing more experienced staff. Staff were not allowed to work until they, the registered manager and the person said they were happy for them to work with them. Staff had received training and understood their roles in respect of safeguarding vulnerable adults. They had also received training to support their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the impact this could have on the person they supported.

The person was kept safe by staff who had been trained and supervised. The person and their relatives confirmed they had confidence in staff and the management and were involved in developing their care plans and a regular review took place. Staff spoke positively about the management and teamwork and the open culture at the service. There was a high staff morale that was well led.

Care files were computerised and personalised to reflect the person’s personal preferences. Care plans identified their needs and were very detailed to guide care staff to ensure they received safe care. There was a small staff team with a low staff turnover which meant the person’s care to ensure they received the right care and treatment. There were safe procedures and systems in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

The registered manager had a quality monitoring system at the service. They actively sought the views of the person, their close relatives and staff. There was a complaints procedure in place; however no complaints had been made.

We met with the nominated individual (the provider's representative) and the registered manager. We spoke with people who use the service, with staff assistance because of their communication needs. We observed how staff interacted with them, and spoke with two staff separately. This helped our understanding of the service provided.

People indicated they were satisfied with staff and the support they received from them. They felt safe with staff, including when equipment was used to meet their needs. We were told us that all staff had been employed for over two years. Thus all staff knew those they supported very well.

We found that before people received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. They were cared for in a hygienic environment and protected from unsuitable equipment, further promoting their welfare.

The provider had effective systems to monitor the service's quality and manage risks to the health, safety or welfare of people who use the service and others.

People were happy with staff, with the way the service was delivered and the way it was managed. They did not have any suggestions as to how the service could be improved. They told us they felt safe.

Staff understood how to ensure that people's privacy was protected, their independence promoted and that people were treated with respect and dignity. Staff were creative in helping to overcome any obstacles which might have prevented people from leading an active, varied and interesting life.

All care staff had learned to communicate with people using this service. The care delivered to them carefully planned and documented. Staff had a good understanding of their role and how to offer support safely.

Staff received appropriate training to ensure people were supported safely. Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff were competent, maintained their skills and competence, and were supervised. Staff were employed in sufficient numbers to ensure that there were at least two carers available at all times.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that the standard of care delivered was monitored internally and externally, and changes or improvements were made as needed.