You are here

Cheshire East Council Domiciliary Care Service Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 January 2014
Date of Publication: 25 February 2014
Inspection Report published 25 February 2014 PDF

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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 30 January 2014, talked with people who use the service and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Reasons for our judgement

We asked the manager to tell us how the agency monitored the quality of the service that people received. We were told that, as well as regular checks/audits being undertaken on all aspects of the running of the agency, there was regular formal and informal communication with the people using the service.

We were told that each month a specific topic of practice was audited. We saw evidence of some of the monthly audits that had been undertaken; such as medication, support plans and risk assessments.

We saw evidence in the support plan that we looked at to show that environmental health and safety risk assessments were undertaken in the person's home. The support plan also provided evidence that assessments had been undertaken in relation to any hazards that may have presented a risk to the person's health and welfare.

We were told that seeking the views of people about the service they received was an ongoing process. We were told that regular telephone surveys were undertaken asking people for their views about the service they received. We were told that senior management undertook visits every six months to the homes of people using the service. This was to make sure their needs were being met and to seek their views on the support provided. In addition to this, after the person no longer required the service, they were sent a satisfaction survey form asking for their views on the service that had been provided.

We looked at some of the responses from the surveys. Comments made included; “Cannot say a bad word about the staff. They have done a very good job. Thank you so much” and “A very good and much appreciated team whose help has been invaluable. Also all the information received during conversations has been very helpful and necessary”.

We were told that, in addition to individual staff supervision meetings, monthly group supervision meetings were undertaken for the care support workers. Separate monthly meetings were also held for senior support workers, senior management and administration staff. We were told that the meetings gave staff the opportunity to discuss any issues in connection with all aspects of the running of the service.

The provider had a number of emergency procedures in place, which identified and mitigated the risks arising from emergencies that could affect the provision of care. There were procedures in place for dealing with staffing issues, utility failures and other factors that could affect the provision of care.