You are here

Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Good

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


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.

Inspection areas



Updated 7 December 2015

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to safeguard people from abuse and people told us that they felt safe.

The agency employed sufficient staff to meet the identified needs of the people they provided services to. The service carried out appropriate checks to ensure suitable staff were employed.

Medicines were safely administered by staff and accurately recorded. Staff had been trained in administering medicines and audits were carried out regularly.



Updated 7 December 2015

The service was effective.

Staff had access to training and the provider had a system in place to ensure this was up to date. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals.

People’s rights were protected. People received assessments and were consulted before care was provided. The provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

Effective communication ensured the necessary information was passed between staff to make sure people received appropriate care.

People received food and drink to meet their needs and support was provided for people with specialist nutritional needs.



Updated 7 December 2015

The service was caring.

Care plans were written in a personalised way based on the needs of the person concerned. People were cared for by kind, respectful staff.

People were offered support in a way that upheld their dignity and promoted their independence.

People were involved in making decisions about their care.



Updated 7 December 2015

The service was responsive.

The complaints procedure was accessible to people and the service maintained records of compliments, feedback and complaints.

Where necessary, the provider worked well with other agencies to make sure people received their care in a coordinated way.

Staff were aware of people’s important contacts and GPs, and supported people to make contact with them where required.

The service was flexible in response to people’s needs and preferences.



Updated 7 December 2015

The service was well-led.

There were several quality assurance systems in place that enabled the registered manager to monitor the quality of the service, identify and address short falls and improve the service.

The registered manager promoted a culture of openness and transparency through being approachable and listening to people.

Staff were supported by a comprehensive range of policies and procedures This ensured that staff supported people in a consistent way