You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

This inspection took place over three days on 5,6 and 12 March 2018. At our previous inspection in September 2016 we found that improvements were required in the safe handling of medicines and the provider was not always notifying us of significant events. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the management of medicines, however further improvements were required in the systems in place to monitor and improve the service.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection 149 people were using the service.

Not everyone using Homestay Care Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do receive this support we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Improvements were required to the quality assurance systems in place to ensure people's care was reviewed. Analysis of quality questionnaires had not taken place. There was no staff training development plan. The provider told us they would take action to make improvements in these areas.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff knew what to do if they suspected potential abuse and risks to people were minimised through the effective use of risk assessments. Incidents that could have resulted in harm were analysed and action taken to minimise the risk of them occurring again.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. New staff had been employed through safe recruitment procedures.

People were supported to take their medicines safely and staff followed safe infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection.

People's needs were assessed with them and their relatives and staff knew people's needs. People were supported to access other health care agencies if they became unwell and staff worked alongside other professionals to provide holistic care.

Staff received support and training to be effective in their roles.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink of their choice.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to ensure people who lacked mental capacity were consenting to their care and support. 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 support this practice.

People and their relatives were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in and able to make choices about their care. People's right to privacy was promoted.

People received care that was personalised and met their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives were able to raise concerns and complaints and they would be acted upon.

The provider worked with other agencies to meet people's needs at the end of their life.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service. People were routinely asked their views on the service they received and there was a kind and caring culture within the service. The provider worked with other agencies to ensure a holistic approach to people's care.

People, their relatives and staff liked and respected the management.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service had improved in this area and was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff knew what to do if they suspected potential abuse.

Risks to people were minimised through the effective use of risk assessments.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs. New staff had been employed through safe recruitment procedures.

People were supported to take their medicines safely.

Staff followed safe infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection.

Incidents that could have resulted in harm were analysed and action taken to minimise the risk of them occurring again.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service remains effective.

People's needs were assessed with them and their relatives and staff knew people's needs.

Staff received support and training to be effective in their roles.

People were supported to access other health care agencies if they became unwell and staff worked alongside other professionals to provide holistic care.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink of their choice.

The principles of the MCA were followed to ensure people were consenting to their care and support.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service remains caring.

People and their relatives were treated with dignity and respect.

People and their relatives were involved in and able to make choices about their care.

People's right to privacy was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service remains responsive.

People received care that was personalised and met their individual needs and preferences.

People and their relatives were able to raise concerns and complaints and they would be acted upon.

The provider worked with other agencies to meet people's needs at the end of their life.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 April 2018

The service required improvement in well led.

Improvements to the systems to ensure people's care was reviewed were required. Analysis of quality questionnaires had not taken place.

There was no staff training development plan.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.

People were routinely asked for their views on the service they received and there was a kind and caring culture within the service.

The provider worked with other agencies to ensure a holistic approach to people's care.

People, their relatives and staff liked and respected the management.