• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Voyage (DCA) (West Midlands)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Flat 7, Heantun Croft, Bushbury Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 0LR (01902) 723162

Provided and run by:
Voyage 1 Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

9 February 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 9 February 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours notice that we intended to inspect the service. This allowed the provider time to collect information about the care people received in their homes which we might have wanted to review.

Voyage (DCA) (West Midlands) is a domiciliary care agency which provides care to people who have learning disabilities in their own homes and in supported living schemes. At the time of our inspection 35 people were receiving personal care from the service. There was a registered manager at this location. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our last inspection in May 2014 the provider was compliant with all the regulations we looked at.

All the people we spoke with told us that the service protected people from the risk of harm. Staff knew how to recognise when people might be at risk of harm and how to respond and the provider had made relatives aware of how to raise concerns. There were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs.

Staff received regular training and were confident they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s need. The relatives expressed their confidence that staff looked after their loved ones very well. Staff received training updates as peoples conditions changed so they knew how to meet people’s current care needs.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff knew how to obtain consent from people and best interest meetings were held when assessments identified that people lacked capacity. Staff often signed care plans when people were unable to sign themselves. There was a risk that staff would not be impartial to people’s needs.

People received sufficient nutrition to keep them well. When necessary the provider arranged for people to be supported by other health care providers to ensure they maintained their health.

Staff spoke affectionately about the people they supported and relatives told us that staff were very caring and compassionate. The provider respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to be as independent as they wanted.

The provider was responsive to people’s care needs and respected their wishes. People were supported by staff they said they liked and were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them.

People were regularly encouraged to comment about the service they received and felt confident the provider would respond to their concerns. The provider had a process to review concerns and incidents to identify how to reduce the risk of similar events from reoccurring.

Staff felt supported by the manager and understood their roles and responsibilities.

The provider had an effective system in place in order to evaluate the quality of the care they provided. The provider took prompt action when necessary in order to improve the quality of the service.

3 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. There were 30 people receiving a service on the day of the inspection. We were only able to speak to one person due to people's complex needs or lack of availability due to their attendance at college or a day centre. We spoke to two relatives, two members of staff and the manager.

We found that people were able to give consent before they were supported by care staff.

We found that people's care and support needs were being met how they wanted. The provider had systems in place to capture people's support needs. One relative said, "The service my relative gets is exactly what they needed".

The provider had enough staff with the right skills and knowledge to support people safely.

The provider had a quality assurance system in place to ensure the service people received was of a high standard. One relative said, "I have never had to complain, the service has been really good".

31 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people. We spoke with one person, three members of staff, three relative's, and the manager.

The building this agency was based in also provided a number of flats that people were living in. Four of the people living within the building were also in receipt of services provided by the agency. On the day of the inspection we were not able to communicate with people due to their communication needs or they were not at home and could only observe one person for a very short period of time.

People and relatives we spoke with told us that staff respected them and one person said, 'Staff do respect my privacy, dignity and independence'.

Records showed that care and treatment was provided in a person centred way. One relative told us they were "Really happy" with the care and that this had improved one persons skills.

People told us they felt safe with staff. Records showed that a process was in place to keep people safe from harm. Staff knew what abuse was and who to report it to if needed.

Records showed that staff underwent appropriate checks before being employed to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. One relative said, 'Staff are very kind and caring'.

Records showed that a system was in place to audit the quality of services and give people and relatives the opportunity to comment on the service being provided.