You are here

Ruby Grange Homecare Limited Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 January 2018

This inspection took place on the 14 November 2017 and was announced. We told the provider two working days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and staff might be out visiting people.

The service is a domiciliary care agency and is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults some of whom could be living with dementia and younger disabled adults.

At the time of our inspection, the provider was offering a service to 14 people.

This was the service’s first inspection following their registration with the Care Quality Commission on the 5 December 2016. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff and the management team were described as very caring and kind. Staff demonstrated an empathetic approach to working with people and supported people’s emotional wellbeing. People were supported to access appropriate health care and staff recorded what people ate and drank to monitor their nutrition and hydration. Staff demonstrated they understood they should report any concerns about people’s health to the management team so they could take appropriate action.

The registered manager assessed the staffing requirements within the service to ensure they had enough staff before accepting new referrals. The management team supported people with their care when there were staff absences to ensure a consistent service.

The provider followed safe recruitment processes to ensure staff were suitable to work in a caring capacity. Staff were given a thorough induction and training to equip them to undertake their work.

The management team had undertaken risk assessments to identify the risks associated with the delivery of care in a person’s home, but sometimes these lacked a person centred approach and did not state the level of risk to the person. However, care plans were thorough and contained good guidance for staff to mitigate risk. We brought this to the registered manager’s attention and they addressed this following the inspection.

Staff were not administering medicines at the time of our inspection however staff had received training and had clear guidance about who administered medicines and the type of support people needed with their medicines.

The management team understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensured people’s rights were being upheld. Staff demonstrated they asked people’s consent before proving care and support.

People had person centred plans that gave guidance to staff about how they wanted their care delivered. Care plans were signed by people to show they agreed with the content and these were updated and reviewed on a regular basis to capture changing circumstances.

People and relatives said they knew how to complain and they found that their concerns were addressed in a timely manner by the registered manager.

The management team shared the company’s vision and ethos with the staff in their induction and training. They acted as role models to show how they wanted care to be delivered.

The management team had a good oversight of the way the service was provided because they had quality assurance systems including audits and checks to ensure the quality of the care provided.

The management team had joined a national organisation and were accessing training to ensure they kept abreast of good practice.

Inspection areas



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was safe. People had risk assessments and these were thorough in terms of the areas covered but were not always person centred and did not identify the level of risk to the person. However, care plans were detailed and contained relevant information for staff guidance.

People using the service were not being supported with their medicines at the time of inspection. However, staff had received medicines administration training so they could support people with their medicines when this was needed.

Staff had received safeguarding adults training and knew how to report abuse concerns appropriately.

The provider followed a robust recruitment procedure and the registered manager ensured there were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

Staff understood the need to use protective equipment to avoid cross infection when providing care.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was effective. Staff demonstrated they upheld people�s rights with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and people were asked their consent before care and support was provided.

Staff received a thorough induction that included training and they completed a probationary period during which the management team offered support and assessed to ensure they were competent in their role.

Staff told the management team if they had concerns for people�s health and supported people to access the appropriate health care services to ensure their health needs were met.

Staff supported people to eat healthily and remain hydrated. Staff recorded food consumed and fluids taken.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and the management team describing them as caring and kind.

Staff demonstrated sensitivity about how people were feeling and spent time with people to ensure their emotional wellbeing.

People and relatives were supported to give their views on how they wanted their care to be provided.

Staff ensured people�s dignity and privacy.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was responsive. People had person centred care plans that contained a brief history and gave clear guidance about how they wished to be supported.

People and their relatives knew how to complain and the service responded to complaints in an appropriate manner.



Updated 12 January 2018

The service was well-led. The company had a clear vision and ethos that was shared with staff during induction training to ensure they worked towards a shared aim.

There was very good lines of communication between the management team, staff, people using the service and their relatives.

People and relatives were asked to feedback about the service on a regular basis in a number of ways and the management team completed checks and audits to ensure the quality of the service.

The company had joined a national organisation to ensure they kept informed of new legislation and had opportunities to network with other companies to share good practice.