You are here

Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care Good

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 June 2018

Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It is registered to provide a service to older people, people living with dementia and people with mental health needs. Not everyone using Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care received a regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (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.

This inspection was carried out between 10 and 14 May 2018 and was an announced inspection. This is the first inspection of this service under its current registration. At the time of our inspection there were 96 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 received a safe service. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and keeping people safe. The registered manager’s response to accidents and incidents helped reduce the potential for any recurrence. The staff recruitment process helped ensure that the necessary checks were completed before new staff commenced their employment. There was a sufficient number of staff in post who were provided with the training and skills they needed to provide people with safe care and support. People's medicines were administered and managed safely.

People received an effective service that took account of their independence. Staff knew how to promote people’s independence. People were supported to make decisions that benefitted their wellbeing by staff who knew what decisions each person could make. People's care plans included sufficient detail of their assessed needs and the amount of support they required from staff. Risks to people were identified, and plans were put into place to promote their safety in a way which gave people freedom of choice.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People benefitted from the support and care that trained and skilled staff provided. This helped to promote people's safety and independence. Staff were regularly reminded of their responsibilities in meeting each person’s individual needs. The registered manager used information from regular spot checks of staff’s performance to help staff to maintain and improve their skills. Staff enabled people to access community or other primary health care services. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient quantities of food and fluid.

People received a caring service that was provided with compassion. This was by staff who ensured people’s privacy and dignity was promoted. Staff respected people’s rights to be cared for in an unhurried and considerate manner. People's independence was promoted by staff who encouraged people to make their own decisions about their care. People who needed advocacy had this in place and this helped ensure people’s views were considered and acted upon.

People received a responsive service that helped them to have their needs met in a person centred way. Suggestions and concerns were acted upon before they became a complaint. Technology was used to help people to receive care that was timely. Systems were in place to support people to have a dignified death.

People received a well-led service which they were involved in developing. Their views were listened to, considered and acted upon. Staff meetings and communication systems including a

Inspection areas



Updated 5 June 2018

The service was safe.

People�s safety was promoted by a sufficient number of staff who had been trained in safeguarding processes.

Risk assessments were in place to manage any risk that could impact on people�s safety.

Medicines were administered and managed by trained and competent staff.



Updated 5 June 2018

The service was effective.

People�s assessed needs were met by staff who had undertaken relevant training.

People were supported to eat and drink well.

People were enabled to access health care services by staff who had a good knowledge of people�s needs.

People�s independence was promoted by staff by helped them to make informed decisions.



Updated 5 June 2018

The service was caring.

People received a caring service from staff who showed compassion and kindness.

People contributed to their care needs and advocacy was in place where it was needed to make sure people�s views were upheld.

Staff respected people�s privacy and dignity.



Updated 5 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People contributed to the planning of their care and towards how this was provided.

People�s concerns were acted upon to the complainant�s satisfaction.

Systems were in place to help ensure people could have a dignified death that was based upon their personal preferences.



Updated 5 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The registered manager supported their staff to work as a team. This helped promote equality as well as building collaborative relationships.

Audit and quality assurance systems were effective in driving improvements.

Systems were in place to support staff with regular supervision, support and team meetings.