You are here

Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Good

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 May 2014
Date of Publication: 14 June 2014
Inspection Report published 14 June 2014 PDF | 76.86 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 16 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We gathered information from people who used the service by telephoning them and their relatives.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on evidence we collected from speaking with people who used the service, their representatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. The provider had safeguarding procedures that were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. One person told us, "The management are always very contactable and give good advice on any issues”. Another said: “The staff are always professional and well-trained”.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff were able to deal with and learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. The provider's systems reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff told us they referred to people's care plans when providing care. People we spoke with confirmed that care workers always carried out the care routines that were detailed in their care plans. This showed that people received the care and support they expected, and they had not been put at unnecessary risk by care workers not delivering appropriate care.

The provider had effective procedures that ensured people were cared for by staff who had the right skills and experience. The provider had effective recruitment procedures and had provided staff with relevant training and support. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met by staff who understood people's needs. People told us that it was important to them that they had consistent care workers. The provider had sought to ensure that people received care and support from the same team of care workers. People we spoke with confirmed that this happened most of the time.

The provider had procedures in place that identified good and poor practice. Staff received refresher or additional training if their care practice had been identified as falling below expected standards. The provider had an effective complaints procedure that ensured complaints were thoroughly investigated. The provider ensured that lessons were learnt from complaints and incidents and risks to people were effectively managed.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While the manager informed us that no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their representatives. People told us that they and anyone else they chose were involved in the development of their plans of care. Where required, specialist input into care plans had been provided by other health and social care professionals. Care plans were regularly reviewed and kept up to date. That meant people's care plans reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

We asked five people for their opinions about the service and staff that supported them. People were complimentary about the service. One person told us, "They are fantastic and go above and beyond”. Another person told us, "They are very caring and Mum is very comfortable with them”. People told us that what mattered most to them was that they were supported by care workers they knew; that care workers came at times they expected and completed all care routines. People told us that care workers were usually punctual and that they carried out the care routines they expected. They described care workers as kind and caring.

We spoke with care workers who demonstrated that they genuinely cared for and understood the needs of the people they supported. Care workers knew what their responsibilities were in relation to identifying and reporting abuse.

People who used the service and their representatives provided feed-back through an annual satisfaction survey and regular reviews of care. The provider had responded to what people had said. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded in their care plans and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No one we spoke with had ever had to make a complaint. The provider had made the complaints procedure available to people and had systems in place to respond to concerns and complaints. This meant people could be assured that the provider took concerns seriously and investigated them and made improvements.

The provider worked closely with other services to make sure people received support with their health.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had a system for monitoring the quality of service that had been provided. This included regular contact with people as well as feedback questionnaires. People and their relatives were welcome to provide their views and suggestions.

Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the aims of the service. Staff were supported through supervision and training and had opportunities to further develop their knowledge and skills. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.