You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

We carried out an announced inspection of Church Elm Lane on 29 November 2017. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It primarily provides personal care to older adults. At the time of the inspection, the service supported four people with personal care. This was the first inspection of the service since they registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

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 legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the service is managed.

Risks had been identified and information had been included on how to mitigate risks to ensure people received safe care. Staff were aware of how to identify abuse and knew who to report abuse to, both within the organisation and outside the organisation. Medicines were managed safely. Medicine records were completed accurately. Staff had been trained with medicines. Pre-employment checks had been carried out to ensure staff were fit and suitable to provide care and support to people safely. Staff told us they had time to provide person centred care and had enough staff to support people. There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff had been trained on infection control and were provided with personal protection equipment to ensure risks of infection were minimised when supporting people.

Staff had received training required to perform their roles effectively. People were cared for by staff who felt supported. Spot checks had been carried out to observe staff performance to ensure people received the required care and support. Staff had been trained on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew the principles of the act. Assessments had been carried out using the MCA principles. People’s care and support needs were assessed regularly for effective outcomes. The service worked with health professionals if there were concerns about people’s health. Staff could identify the signs people gave when they were not feeling well and knew who to report to.

People had a positive relationship with staff. People and relatives told us that staff were caring. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff. People were involved with making decisions about their care.

Care plans were person centred and detailed people’s preferences, interests and support needs. People and relatives knew how to make complaints and staff were aware of how to manage complaints.

Staff told us the culture within the service was open and transparent and told us the service was well-led. People, relatives and staff were positive about the registered manager. People’s feedback was sought from surveys and reviews meetings.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was safe.

Risks had been identified and information included on how to mitigate risks when supporting people.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew how to identify and report abuse.

Systems were in place to monitor staff attendance and punctuality.

Medicines were being managed safely.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was effective.

People’s needs and choices were being assessed effectively to achieve effective outcomes.

Staff had the knowledge, training and skills to care for people effectively.

Staff felt supported in their role.

Staff knew when people were unwell and who to report this to.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was caring.

People had a positive relationship with staff.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were involved with making decisions of the care and support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and included information on how to support people.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

Staff knew how to manage complaints and people were confident with raising concerns if required.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 December 2017

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance systems were in place for continuous improvements to be made.

Staff told us the service was well-led and were positive about the management.

People’s feedback was obtained through surveys and spot check meetings.