You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

This inspection took place on 12 April 2018. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. At the time of the inspection Dendera Limited provided domiciliary care and support for fifteen people in their own home that were receiving personal care. The service worked mostly with older people all of whom were living in the same London borough and all receiving a short term re-ablement service. Re-ablement is a rehabilitation service designed to help people regain independence, usually after a period of time in hospital. The service worked with people for an average of four weeks on a targeted re-ablement programme in order to assist people to regain their independence. If the service thought that people were in need of more weeks they raised this with the purchasing authority and their views were listened to, as we saw in one example for a person currently using the service. Aside from this the vast majority of people needed no more than the four week programme and in one recent case a person had themselves ceased using the service as they did not feel they required it, which was assessed and acted upon. 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 registration in April 2017.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manger is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of law; as does the provider. The registered manager was present during the inspection.

Procedures relating to safeguarding people from harm were in place. Staff we spoke with understood what to do and who to report it to if people were at risk of harm. Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and were aware of the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. No one using the service at present lacked capacity.

The service operated safe staff recruitment procedures and ensured that all staff were suitable for the role before beginning any care work.

Medicines were managed safely and the service checked people could do this independently. Assistance, by way of asking people if they had taken their medicines, was provided to some people if this was needed until it could be verified that people could manage their medicines independently and safely without being reminded.

Risk assessments provided staff with guidance on how to mitigate people’s individual personal risks. Risks had been clearly identified and risk reduction measures were identified and acted upon.

Staff were provided with a suitable induction as well as on-going regular training and supervision to support them in their role.

People were involved in planning their care and had regular reviews to gain their opinion on how things were. People and relatives felt that they were treated with dignity and respect. Care plans were person centred and included information on how people wanted their care to be delivered as well as their likes and dislikes.

People and relatives were provided with information on how to make a complaint and their views were obtained and acted upon.

People who used the service, relatives and stakeholders had a range of opportunities to provide their views about the quality of the service. The provider regularly monitored the care of people as although the service provided to each person was short term the provider saw it as important to make regular contact to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. The provider was also required to report back weekly to the local authority that commissioned the service about progress of each person and the effectiveness of the service in achieving the goal for people to

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was safe. Staff were provided with training and guidance to enable them to recognise abuse and how to respond to any concerns of potential abuse.

Risk assessments provided staff with appropriate guidance on how to keep people safe and this included medicines management. Medicines were safely managed.

The provider followed safe staff recruitment practices and people received a continuity of care and on most occasions had the same staff visiting them.

The provider had taken steps to understand and learn from any incidents that occurred and took steps to address improvements as a result of these.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was effective. People’s needs were assessed in consultation with them, their family if appropriate, and commissioning authority.

Staff received regular training, an induction before commencing their work and supervision to support them in their work.

The service worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and recognised how this influenced the care that they provided.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink so that their dietary needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was caring. People were treated with respect and staff maintained privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged to have input into their care and their views were respected. We were informed that care staff usually responded with kindness, respected people’s dignity and their rights.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was responsive. People's care was person centred and planned in collaboration with them, with clear goals set to allow people to become independent once more. People using the service and relatives confirmed this.

The provider monitored the care provided to people using spot checks and regular phone calls to people to ask them about the quality of their care.

People knew how to make a complaint. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and the provider to responded to any complaints that were made.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 June 2018

The service was well led. People were asked about their views on the support they received from the service.

The registered manager had a monitoring system in place to ensure care was assessed, audited and that people’s needs were met.

People’s views were obtained and were acted upon.