You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The inspection took place on the 15 and 18 December 2017 and was announced.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 3 people.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own apartments in the community. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Yourlife Poundbury receives a 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 we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Yourlife Poundbury office is situated in Bowes Lyon Court which is a McCarthy and Stone retirement living development of 62 apartments. The service provides support to people living in these apartments and staff are on site 24 hours a day. Bowes Lyon Court is a new development and included a restaurant, internal garden, library and other facilities which people living in the apartments were able to access.

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.

People were supported safely by staff who understood the risks they faced and their role in managing these.

People received their medicines as prescribed and these were recorded accurately.

People were protected from the risk of harm by staff who understood the possible signs of abuse and how to recognise these and report any concerns.

People were supported by enough staff to provide effective, person centred support.

Staff were recruited safely with some pre-employment checks but systems needed to be improved to ensure that information about previous conduct of new staff was robust.

Staff received training and support to ensure that they had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to make choices about all areas of their support.

Staff had training in food hygiene and infection control and understood their roles and responsibilities with regard to protecting people from the risks of infection.

Accidents, incidents and near misses were recorded and learning from these used to prevent reoccurrence and improve support provided for people.

The service ensured that people had access to health care professionals as required. People were supported to retain their independence in their own homes.

People were supported by staff who showed kindness and compassion. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and were respectful of people’s homes.

People were involved in reviews about their support and changes to their needs were reflected in care records.

No-one was in receipt of end of life care but there was a policy in place which included people’s preferences and wishes.

There was a complaints policy in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns.

Care records included person centred details including people’s preferences and what was important to them.

Feedback about the office was positive from people, relatives and staff and management were approachable and available.

Quality assurance measures were regular and used to identify trends and drive improvements.

Feedback systems were effective and again, used to drive changes.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and good practice was recognised and encouraged.

The service was aware of the importance of partnership working and understood when to seek advice or guidance

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was safe

Risks people faced were understood and managed by staff.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out for new staff but more robust checks about conduct in previous employment were needed.

Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.

People were protected from the risks of abuse by staff who understood the potential signs and were confident to report.

People were protected from the spread of infection by staff who understood the principles of infection control.

Lessons were learnt and improvements were made when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was effective.

People were asked to consent to their support and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received training and supervision to give them the skills they needed to carry out their roles.

The service worked with other healthcare services to deliver effective care.

People’s needs and choices were assessed and effective systems were in place to deliver good care and treatment

Caring

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were compassionate and kind.

Staff knew how people liked to be supported and offered them appropriate choices.

People were supported by staff who communicated in ways which were meaningful for them.

People were supported by staff that respected and promoted their independence, privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was responsive.

People had individual care records which were person centred and gave details about people’s history, what was important to them and identified support they required from staff

People and their relatives were listened to and felt involved in making decisions about their care.

People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns and told us that they would feel confident to raise issues if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 March 2018

The service was well led.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service.

Staff felt supported and were confident and clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Quality assurance measures provided oversight and enabled the service to identify good practice and areas for further development.

Feedback was used to highlight areas of good practice or where development was needed. Information was used to plan actions and make improvements.