You are here

Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Also known as Silver Lining Care Services Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 14 January 2014
Date of Publication: 11 February 2014
Inspection Report published 11 February 2014 PDF | 95.88 KB

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 14 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

We spoke with the owners, the registered manager, two health care professionals, three relatives and a family friend.

Our judgement

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

Reasons for our judgement

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We saw that there was a thorough assessment in place which was undertaken prior to the service starting. We looked at three care files in people’s own homes.

We found the agency supplied ‘a client journal’ in people’s home. This file contained all the information required and included a service agreement and signed contract. These files were very organised and kept neatly.

The care delivered was person centred. People told us that the agency provided a service, based on what the person needed. One person said “they do what I want them to do”. Two health care professionals told us “they are good at building up relationships” and “any problems are sorted out quickly”. They further commented that the service “had a good reputation”, “well thought of in the area” and “well respected.

We saw that care and support plans were comprehensive and details of any specific care needed were in place. We saw that any information/guidance from specialist professionals was held in the records, for example there was information on strokes and specialised feeding programmes. Health care professionals told us that the agency asked for advice where and when necessary and that any problems “were sorted out quickly. There was a ‘client activity log’ which staff completed at each visit. We saw that these contained a good summary of what staff had done on which visit and were signed and dated.

Each person had an environmental risk assessment and further individual risks identified as necessary such as falls, mental capacity and skin integrity. Whilst we saw that risks had been identified, we found that there was not always enough information to support staff to do their jobs properly and in a consistent manner. For example, one person was at risk of a skin infection due to a specialised catheter being fitted but lacked detail of how to manage this risk. One person was at risk of pressure damage but no information to guide staff to manage this. We spoke with the manager about this issue and they told us that they had already identified that the care plans and risk assessments needed more detail and more frequent updating. They were in the process of recruiting two part-time staff to help address the concerns.

Each file had a separate ‘communication book’ where relevant information was written down to pass on to other staff, for example information that the care plan had changed.

People told us that the agency provided a regular and consistent staff team to individuals. People and their relatives told us that they liked to get to know the staff and one person said “they go above and beyond”. Healthcare professionals told us that they liked the fact that the agency matched care staff with particular people and that a continuity of service was provided. They commented “it’s really great – the continuity of staff” and “people have the same carers – good for the complex cases”.

We saw that the care and support plans were reviewed regularly and this information was held electronically.

People showed us they had a rota which showed which carer could be expected on each day and at what time. Staff told us they found it ‘helpful’ to know what they would be working. They told us that they sent in an availability sheet to the agency and the office staff tried to accommodate their working pattern. One member of staff told us that they work with the same person all the time, but it would be helpful if they worked set days too.

People and relatives told us that the agency was flexible and responded to any changes in care provision. For example, we saw that one person had cancelled several visits due to family visiting.