Wellbeing Homecare Services Limited

Updated 22 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office providing care, so we needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection visit was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and improvements they plan to make. This was returned to us by the provider and used to inform our judgement.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications regarding important events which the provider must tell us. We contacted commissioners at Derby City Council who commission packages of care for people and Derby Healthwatch; an independent consumer champion for people who use health and social care services, for their views about the care provided. No information of concern was received about the provider.

During the inspection we spoke with two people in their own homes who we visited with the registered manager. We spoke with three people who used the service and two relatives of people received care and support from the service. We spoke with seven members of staff in total; they included four care staff, a care co-ordinator, the registered manager and the provider.

We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. These records included care plans, risk assessments and daily records of the support provided. We looked at four staff recruitment files and staff training records. We looked at records that showed how the provider managed and monitored the quality of service. These included quality audits and checks, complaints and concerns, minutes of meetings, and a sample of policies and procedures.

Updated 22 June 2018

This inspection took place on 16 and 17 May 2018 and was announced.

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 older adults, and younger disabled adults.

At the time of our inspection visit seven people were using the service. Not everyone using Wellbeing Homecare Services Limited receives a 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.

This was the first inspection of the service since they were registered on 21 April 2017. At this inspection we found evidence to support the rating of good.

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 were protected from the risk of harm. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and understood how to assess, monitor and manage their safety. A range of risk assessments were completed and preventative action was taken to reduce the risk of harm to people.

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way. People’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported with their health care needs when required. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated care and support.

People were protected by safe recruitment procedures to help ensure staff were suitable to work in care services. There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received training for their role and ongoing support and supervision to work effectively.

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. The provider, manager and staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and gained people's consent before they were supported.

People were involved all aspects of their care from the assessment of needs to the development of their care plans, reviews and the decisions they made were documented. Care plans had been reviewed and updated people’s needs had changed. Staff were provided with clear guidance to follow in the care plan which included information about people’s preferences, daily routines and diverse cultural needs. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences and worked flexibly to ensure they were responsive.

People and their relatives were happy with staff who provided their personal care and had developed positive trusting relationships. People continued to be treated with dignity and respect, and their rights to privacy were upheld.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement. People and relatives all spoke positively about the staff team and how the service was managed. The provider had a process in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns.

The registered manager and provider were aware of their legal responsibilities and provided leadership and supported staff and people who used the service. The registered manager and staff team were committed to the provider’s vision and values of providing good quality care.

The provider’s policies and procedures had been reviewed and updated. The provider’s quality assurance system to monitor and assess the quality of the service was used effectively to improve the service. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong and improvements made to prevent it happening again. The provider worked in partnership with other agencies to meet people’s needs.