You are here

Blyth Community Enterprise Centre Good Also known as Mrs O's Caring Hands Homecare Limited

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 December 2017

The inspection took place on 7 and 8 November 2017 and was announced. This meant we gave the provider notice of our intended visit to ensure someone would be available in the office to meet us. This was our first inspection of Blyth Community Enterprise Centre, also known as Mrs O’s Caring Hands.

Mrs O’s Caring Hands is a domiciliary care provider based in the Blyth, providing personal care to people in their own homes in the local area. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care to 21 people, the majority of whom required help to maintain their independence at home.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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. The registered manager had extensive experience of working in the social care sector, as did their training manager, who supported them in the running of the service.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and relatives, along with external professionals, expressed no concerns regarding safety. Staff had received safeguarding training and were confident in how to identify and report potential sources of abuse.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people were protected against a range of harms. These were sufficiently detailed and regularly reviewed and staff displayed a good knowledge of the risks people faced.

Pre-employment checks of staff were in place to protect against the risk of unsuitable people being employed.

A lone worker policy and procedures were in place, with an out-of-hours contact telephone number and personal attack alarms provided.

Medicines administration was regularly audited and staff were trained appropriately; we found no evidence of medication errors. The medication policy and safeguarding required updating and the registered manager did this the day after our inspection.

There were sufficient staff, effectively deployed, to meet people’s needs safely, with travel time included in the planning of care calls.

Staff were trained in core areas such as first aid, person-centred care, moving and handling, safeguarding and dementia. Additional training was provided where required.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s likes, dislikes, preferences, mobility and communicative needs. People who used the service confirmed staff knew them well.

People who used the service were supported to maintain their independence in their own homes, in line with the service’s literature.

Care plans were sufficiently detailed and person-centred. They gave staff relevant background information and detailed care information about people, meaning care was individualised.

Care plans were reviewed regularly and with the involvement of people who used the service and their relatives.

Staff displayed a good understanding of capacity and the need for consent on a decision-specific basis. People confirmed their consent was sought at each care visit. 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.

People we spoke with and relatives told us they had received positive outcomes when suggesting changes or raising queries, for instance requesting a specific carer or changing a call time.

People told us they knew who to contact if they had concerns and the provider’s complaints policy was readily available in the files people had in their home.

We saw there were a range of audits and other quality checks to identify errors, inconsistencies, or scope for improvement.

Staff, people who used the service, relatives and other professionals were in agreement that the registered manager led the service well. We

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 December 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were in place for each person and described how staff could help people avoid different types of harm.

Pre-employment checks ensured the risk of unsuitable people working with vulnerable adults was reduced.

Medicines administration was well scrutinised by senior staff and people who used the service had experienced no concerns in this regard. Where policies required updating the registered manager was response to external advice.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received a range of initial and ongoing training, as well as a three day induction and shadowing opportunities.

Care visits were well planned, factoring in travel time. This minimised late visits, as confirmed by people who used the service.

People’s healthcare needs were met through the involvement of external healthcare professionals, with whom staff liaised with well.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 December 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with patience, dignity and respect by staff who knew them well, in line with the company’s philosophy of care.

People were involved in the planning and review of their own care and confirmed they felt enabled by staff.

The individualities and rights of people who used the service, and staff, were respected by the registered manager.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 December 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were reviewed by the registered manager or training manager and families confirmed they were involved in these reviews.

Where people’s needs changed, staff identified this and sought external support where appropriate.

People who used the service and others knew how to raise concerns if they needed, and the service was open to queries or complaints as a means of learning.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 December 2017

The service was well-led.

People and relatives we spoke with were positive about the accountability and approachability of the registered manager.

Regular auditing was in place to scrutinise standards and to ensure errors were identified and rectified.

The registered manager had taken steps to ensure the service was well prepared to grow, for instance by appointing new team leaders.