You are here

Archived: Romsey

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 17, 20 June 2014
Date of Publication: 23 July 2014
Inspection Report published 23 July 2014 PDF | 87.67 KB


Inspection carried out on 17, 20 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use this domiciliary care service, carried out a visit to the head office on 16 June 2014 and visited two people in their homes. We spoke with staff during our visit and afterwards by telephone. We also spoke with other people using the service, or their relatives, by telephone later during the week of the visit.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because each person had a support plan which identified their individual needs, an assessment of possible risks to the person and the visiting care worker and a description of the person’s needs for support.

People were safe because staff received induction and training. This included training in topics such as safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety. Staff we spoke with were able to identify different types of abuse and knew the correct procedures to follow if they had any concerns.

The provider ensured appropriate checks were undertaken before staff started work. We looked at the recruitment records of four care workers. We found photographic identification present on each care worker file. Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) checks were undertaken on new staff. The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Care plans were regularly reviewed by the registered manager or their deputy and systems were in place for communicating any changes to people’s care when required. People using the service confirmed that changes requested to their care were accommodated where possible.

People received care from a regular group of care workers and were informed of their rota in advance.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. During our visit we looked at six care plans and talked with people receiving the service. People said about the staff, “They are very good, polite and friendly, I cannot fault them,” "[My care worker] is marvellous and does that little bit extra” and “They’ll do anything for you, they’re terrific".

People’s preferences and needs were recorded in their care plans, and care and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. People using the service said their views were listened to. Staff ensured people received medical support if necessary.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person said that they had made a complaint and were satisfied with the outcomes. We looked at how these complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been open, thorough, and timely. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The provider ensured staff were recruited in line with best practice and received induction and regular training.

The service had a quality assurance system to check records, review feedback from staff and people using the service and to act on complaints. This meant the quality of the service was continuing to improve.