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: 13 September 2012
Date of Publication: 17 October 2012
Inspection Report published 17 October 2012 PDF | 51.95 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 13/09/2012, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that people receive.

User experience

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences.

We looked at records and asked staff about how they gathered, recorded and evaluated the service. People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and these were acted on.

Other evidence

We looked at the complaints policy and records of compliments and complaints. We saw that people’s feedback had been positive and complimentary of the service and of the care and support they had received. We read letters and notes from the satisfaction surveys carried out by Home Instead; these indicated that the service was being regularly monitored.

Staff explained the role of ‘spot checks’ and that staff were visited and monitored to ensure that people were receiving the service agreed. There were some records of staff attendance and time keeping and we were shown documents used to monitor how the service was being offered and audited. We looked at records including the statement of purpose, service reviews and quality assurance forms and asked how these were used to manage the quality of the service. We spoke with senior staff who advised us that they were continually reviewing how to manage the service. Decisions about care and treatment were made by staff at the appropriate level.

The provider may wish to note that while there were effective records illustrating that people’s feedback was captured, other aspects of the quality audit trail was less robust. Staff training and spot check visits, whilst taking place, were more difficult to overview and track. We spoke with senior staff about this who explained that they were relying on two different audit systems for different aspects of the business monitoring process.