Archived: Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 7 December 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 3 November 2015 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience had older people as their area of expertise.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed information we held about the provider, in particular notifications about incidents, accidents, safeguarding matters and any deaths. We spoke on the telephone with eight people who used the service and four relatives. We spoke with six care staff, the manager and the deputy manager to gather their views about the service provided.

We reviewed a range of documents and records including; three care records for people who used the service, four records of staff employed by the agency, complaints records, accidents and incident records. We also looked at policies and procedures kept by the service.

Updated 7 December 2015

We carried out an inspection of Home Instead Senior Care Limited on 3 November 2015. This was an announced inspection where we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure someone would be available to speak with us.

Home Instead Ltd provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care, companionship and shopping in Twickenham and the surrounding areas. At the time of inspection there were 17 people receiving personal care.

A registered manager was in place. 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 who used the service told us they felt safe. Staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice.

There were sufficient staff employed to provide consistent and safe care to people, with people receiving care from the same small team of staff.

People received their medicines in a safe way and staff had received training in the types of medicines people received. Staff recorded medicines taken by people in an appropriate medicines record sheet.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. They also received other training to meet people’s care needs.

Staff helped ensure people who used the service had food and drink to meet their needs. Some people were assisted by staff to cook their own food and other people received meals that had been prepared by staff.

Staff knew people’s care and support needs. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. There were regular visits and spot checks carried out by the service to monitor the quality of service and the care practice carried out by staff.

People told us that staff were kind, caring and efficient.

People who received care remained independent and in control of their decision making and choices. People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. The service maintained accurate and up to date records of people’s healthcare and GP contacts in case they needed to contact them.

A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain, although no one said they had needed to. The service maintained records of compliments and complaints and recorded how these were resolved.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with staff, people and/or family members and their views were used to improve the service. Regular audits were completed to monitor service provision and to ensure the safety of people who used the service.