You are here

Richmond Village Witney DCA Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

We inspected Richmond Village Witney DCA on 7 November 2017. This service is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to adults living in their own flats and apartments within the retirement village. At the time of our inspection 9 people were supported by the service under the registered regulated activity of personal care. People’s support was provided on a scheduled visit basis and a rapid response in the case of emergency was also available. Other people were receiving other support such as help with housekeeping tasks, but their experiences were not included in our inspection.

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.

People told us they were safe. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. Appropriate checks were carried out before staff started to work to make sure they were suitable to work with people. The provider had safeguarding procedures in place and staff knew how to escalate any concerns.

No people received support with their medicines at the time of our inspection, however staff had received training should they need to assist people with taking their prescribed medicine.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the systems in the service supported this practice. People told us staff respected their decisions.

People's needs were assessed prior to commencement of the service to ensure these could be met. People's care records were current and contained details of people's personal preferences, wishes, life histories and support required. Risks to people’s well-being were assessed and guidance was available to staff how to minimise these risks. People’s care plans outlined people’s dietary preferences and needs and people were supported to access health professionals when required.

People complimented the staff and their caring nature. People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality were respected. Staff respected ways in which people wanted to be supported. Staff were positive about their work and told us they enjoyed their roles. Staff received relevant training and told us they were well supported.

The provider’s complaints policy was available to people and concerns and complaints were managed appropriately. People had opportunities to feedback their views and the information received acted upon.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service people received. The team worked well with other professionals including local health professionals to ensure people received support that met their needs. The registered manager met their legal statutory requirements to inform the relevant authorities of notifiable incidents.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people�s well-being were assessed and recorded.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and free from abuse.

There were enough staff to keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed and care records outlined the level of support they needed.

Staff received training relevant to their roles and were well supported.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and access health services if needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring.

People�s dignity, confidentiality and privacy was respected.

People were supported to be independent.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People received person centred support in line with their assessed needs.

The service was flexible to meet people�s changing needs.

Concerns and complaints were managed appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager had processes to monitor the quality of service provided to people.

Staff were aware about whistleblowing policy and knew how to report concerns if needed.

There was a positive approach, open and transparent culture demonstrated by the registered manager and the staff.