You are here

Genesis International Solutions Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 March 2018

This inspection was announced and took place on 16 January 2018. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice because we wanted to be sure someone would be available to speak with us. This was a comprehensive inspection. This was the first inspection for this service.

Genesis International Solutions provides domiciliary care services for four people. 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.

Relatives told us people were kept safe and free from harm. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Staff knew the people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and families were involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff received regular training in topics the provider considered mandatory and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities.

There were suitable recruitment procedures and required employment checks were undertaken before staff began to work for the service. Staffing levels and skill mix were planned, implemented and reviewed to keep people safe at all times. Any staff shortages were responded to quickly and appropriately.

The staff understood their role in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff gave them choices and respected their decisions.

People were prompted by staff to take their medicines safely. The manager completed regular checks to ensure medicines were safe. People managed their own meals, however staff had information in care plans about peoples eating and drinking requirements, to ensure people’s nutrition and hydration needs were met.

Assessments were undertaken to assess any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included environmental risks and any risks due to the health and support needs of the person. The risk assessments we read included information about action to be taken to minimise the chance of harm occurring.

Staff told us the provider and manager were accessible and approachable. Staff felt able to speak with them and provided feedback on the service during staff briefings.

The registered manager and the provider undertook regular audits and spot checks to review the quality of the service provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of the processes in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and were aware of safeguarding adult�s procedures.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. Plans were in place to manage these risks. There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

People were protected from the risks associated with poor staff recruitment because a full recruitment procedure was followed for new staff. There were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

Staff prompted people to take their medicines as they had been prescribed.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had skills and knowledge to meet people�s needs. Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities.

People�s rights were respected, and the service was following the best interest�s framework of the MCA. People�s choices were supported.

People�s changing needs were responded to promptly and healthcare professionals involved if necessary.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was caring.

People told us their needs were met by staff who addressed and related to them in a friendly and positive manner. Staff respected people�s individuality and spoke to them with respect.

People told us staff were respectful of their privacy.

The service had links to local advocacy services to support people if required.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was responsive.

Staff had guidance from care plans which identified people�s care and support needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people�s interests and preferences in order to provide a personalised service.

People could be confident concerns and complaints would be investigated and responded to.



Updated 4 March 2018

The service was well-led.

Staff were supported by their manager and the provider. There was open communication within the staff team and staff felt comfortable discussing any concerns with their manager.

Regular audits were completed to check the quality of the service.

People were consulted about their views on how the service could be improved during care reviews.