Archived: Finesse Healthcare Ltd

Updated 5 September 2018

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.

The inspection took place on 28 and 29 June 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people in their own homes and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office and able to assist us to arrange home visits. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Inspection site visit activity started on 28 June 2018 and ended on 29 June 2018. We visited the office location on 28 June 2018 to see the registered manager and visit people in their homes. We visited the office on 29 June 2018 to review care records and policies and procedures.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive.

We had requested and received a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Finesse Healthcare Ltd provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care to eight people. We visited three people who received a service and spoke with one person over the phone, we also spoke with one relative during our visits. We were unable to talk with staff during the site visit. We attempted to telephone staff however we were only able to talk with one care worker. We also observed interactions between people the registered manager and one staff member.

We looked at records which related to people’s individual care and the running of the service. Records seen included two care and support plans held at the office, and the three working care plans for the people we visited. We also looked at quality audits, three staff personnel files, training and supervision records.

Updated 5 September 2018

Finesse Healthcare Ltd is a care service registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes (domiciliary care). The service specialises in providing a support to people in the local community who live in the Taunton area. We announced our intention to inspect the domiciliary service so we could be sure the registered manager, staff and people receiving a service were available to talk to us. Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection eight people were receiving the regulated activity ‘personal care’.

This inspection was announced and took place on 28 and 29 June 2018. This was the first inspection since the provider registered the service in March 2017. The service had only been providing personal care for approximately six months at the time of the inspection.

The registered manager who was also the provider ran the service from the site office and carried out hands on personal care. 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 were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who provided their care and support. People were protected from harm because the provider had a robust recruitment process and staff received training in how to recognise and report abuse. People’s care plans included information on how they could raise concerns if they or a relative or friend felt they were at risk of abuse.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people and an on-going recruitment programme was in place. This meant the staff team was expanding to meet the needs of a growing more diverse client group.

People were supported by staff who knew their needs and understood the importance of delivering effective care and support. All new staff completed an induction and worked alongside staff who knew the people before they worked alone. Records showed all staff also completed training relevant to the needs of the people they provided care and support for. All staff received one to one supervision when they could discuss their needs and the needs of the people they supported. The registered manager also carried out unannounced spot checks when they could observe staff and talk with people about the care they received.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. People said, “They are excellent,” and “Really nice caring staff,” and “I am more than happy with the staff who visit me.” People also confirmed staff treated them with dignity and respect and gave them time to comment on, and contribute to their day to day care and support.

People received care and support that was responsive to their changing needs. Staff had a clear understanding of people’s needs and how to meet them effectively. People were involved in discussing and setting up their care plans. During the inspection one person was assisted to express their opinion at a care review.

People and staff were supported by a registered manager/provider, who was open, approachable and listened to any suggestions they had for continued development of the service provided.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, ensure staff kept up to date with good practice and to seek people’s views.