You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

This was a comprehensive inspection that took place on 6 November 2018. We informed the provider 48 hours in advance of our visit that we would be inspecting. This was to ensure there was somebody at the location to facilitate our inspection. This was the first inspection since the service was registered in March 2017.

This service 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 people living with dementia, with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health condition, physical disability, sensory impairment, older people, people who misuse drugs and alcohol, and younger adults.

Not everyone using Outreach 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. At the time of this inspection, 26 people were receiving personal care support.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 felt safe with staff and they were trustworthy. Staff knew how to safeguard people against harm and abuse, and how to escalate concerns of abuse and neglect.

People told us they were generally satisfied with staff timekeeping and punctuality and found them to be reliable. The provider monitored care visits to ensure staff arrived on time and stayed throughout the duration of the care visit.

People’s medicines were managed safely and were satisfied with the support. Staff followed safe infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection.

There was enough staffing to meet people’s needs safely. The provider followed appropriate recruitment practices to ensure suitable staff were supporting people at risk.

Staff were provided with sufficient training and regular supervision to do their jobs effectively.

The provider had systems in place to learn and share lessons from when things went wrong to minimise its reoccurrence.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. They told us their individual including dietary needs were met. People were supported to access healthcare services.

Staff received regular training and supervision to provide effective care. The provider delivered care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles.

People told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People’s cultural and spiritual needs were met and recorded in their care plans. People were supported to remain as independent as possible.

The provider ensured continuity of care and people told us the continuity of care enabled them to form positive relationships with staff.

People’s care plans were individualised and regularly reviewed. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and how to meet their personalised needs.

People and their relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and were generally satisfied with how their complaints were resolved.

The provider had end of life policy and systems in place to support people to have a dignified and pain-free death.

People and relatives spoke positively about the management. Staff told us they felt supported and enjoyed working with the provider. The provider had effective monitoring and auditing checks and systems to ensure the safety and quality of the service.

People, relatives and staff's feedback was sought to continuously improve the service.

The management worked with several organisations to improve the lives of people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with staff. Risks to people were assessed and mitigated. Staff knew how to safeguard people against harm and abuse.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

There were sufficient and suitable staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff followed safe infection control procedures to prevent the spread of infection.

The provider had systems in place to learn and share lessons when things went wrong so as to minimise recurrence.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was effective.

People told us their needs were met by staff who were aware of their needs and abilities. People’s needs were assessed before they started using their service and they told us their dietary needs were met.

Staff received regular training and supervision to their job effectively.

People where requested were supported to access healthcare services.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act principles.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was caring.

People and relatives told us staff were caring, kind and friendly. They further said staff listened to their views and opinions and felt involved in their care.

People were generally supported by the same staff team and they told us staff treated them with dignity and respect. People cultural and spiritual needs were recorded and met by staff.

Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People told us staff knew their likes and dislikes and received personalised care. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s wishes and preferences.

People’s care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. Where requested, people were supported with their social care needs and these were recorded in their care plans.

Staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

People and their relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and were generally satisfied with the way their complaints were resolved.

The provider had end of life policy and systems in place to support people to have a dignified and pain-free death.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 December 2018

The service was well-led.

People, their relatives and healthcare professionals told us the service was well managed. Staff told us they felt supported and enjoyed working for the service.

The provider had effective monitoring and auditing checks in place to ensure the quality and safety of the service. The management worked with several organisations to improve the service.