You are here

Sapphire Home Care Good Also known as Sapphire Home Care

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

This inspection was carried out on 17 and 18 May 2018. The inspection was announced.

Sapphire Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, people living with dementia, people with an eating disorder, people with a mental health problem and people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder.

Not everyone using Sapphire Home Care receives 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. There were seven people in receipt of personal care when we inspected.

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. The registered manager was also one of the directors of the company.

People and their relatives told us they received safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led care. They had nothing but positive feedback about the service they received.

The provider had followed effective recruitment procedures to check that potential staff employed were of good character and had the skills and experience needed to carry out their roles. Staff had attended training relevant to people's needs. They were provided with one to one supervision meetings and regular spot checks to ensure that they were putting their training into practice.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Effective systems were in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. People had opportunities to feedback about the service they received.

People were supported and helped to maintain their health and to access health services. Timely action had been taken when people's health changed.

Risks to people's safety and welfare were well managed to make sure they were protected from harm. No accidents and incidents had occurred.

Medicines were well managed. Staff had received medicines training. Medicines had been recorded adequately. Medicines records were audited monthly.

People's support plans were clear for staff about how they should meet people’s care and support needs.

Essential information about people such as their life history, likes, dislikes and preferences were included. Support plans had been reviewed and amended regularly to ensure they reflected each person's current need or specific healthcare needs.

People knew who to complain to if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available in the office and in people had copies within their handbooks in their homes.

People were protected from abuse or the risk of abuse. The registered manager and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people.

Some people received support to prepare and cook meals and drinks to meet their nutritional and hydration needs.

There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people's needs. The registered manager worked with people providing care and support on a regular basis. People received consistent support from staff they knew well.

People's information was treated confidentially. People's paper records were stored securely in locked filing cabinets.

People and relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff were positive about the support they received from the management team. They felt they could raise concerns

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was safe.

Risks had been appropriately assessed and mitigated to ensure people were safe. No accidents or incidents had occurred. Medicines were managed safely.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people�s needs. The provider had followed safe recruitment practices.

Staff knew what they should do to identify and raise safeguarding concerns.

Measures were in place to minimise the spread of any infection. Staff used personal protective equipment to safeguard themselves and people.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had completed training to help them meet people's assessed needs. Staff received regular supervision.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people to make decisions. People�s choices and decisions were respected.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it.

People had appropriate support when required to ensure their nutrition and hydration needs were well met.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us they found the staff caring, friendly and helpful.

Staff were careful to protect people's privacy and dignity and people told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People's information was treated confidentially.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was responsive.

Support plans were in place, these were person centred and clearly detailed what care and support staff needed to provide. Support plans had been reviewed and amended when necessary.

The registered manager planned to discuss people�s end of life wishes and preferences with people.

People knew how to complain. Complaints procedures were detailed in each person�s handbook and guide to the service. There had not been any complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was well led.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place. The provider�s vision and aims had been communicated clearly to staff and to people using the service. It was clear that the vision and aims were being met.

Systems were in place to enable staff, people and their relatives to provide feedback.

Staff were aware of the whistleblowing procedures and were confident that poor practice would be reported appropriately.

Staff felt the registered manager was approachable and would listen to any concerns. Staff felt well supported.