You are here

Archived: Cura Domi - Care at Home Ltd Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 November 2016

Cura Domi – Care At Home Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing people in their own homes. They provide live-in care to people. At the time of our inspection the agency was providing support to 17 people.

This inspection took place on 10 August 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that staff would be available to assist us during the inspection. This was a comprehensive inspection.

There was no registered manager at the service. The current manager was in the process of going through our registration process. 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.

Records did not demonstrate full compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people could not consent to care, relatives had signed their consent forms. There were no mental capacity assessments or best interests decisions documented. We recommended that records be updated with this information.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and demonstrated a good understanding of how to offer people choice.

The provider followed safe recruitment processes and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people's individual needs were being met safely. People’s medicines were administered by trained staff and records were up to date to ensure medicines were administered safely.

People and relatives told us they felt their family members were safe and were confident in the staff that supported them. A contingency plan was in place to ensure that people’s care could be provided safely in the event of staff being late or unavailable.

People told us that staff were competent and skilled in carrying out their role. The provider had effective arrangements in place to train, supervise and provide induction to staff. Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and could call for assistance at any time.

Assessments were completed prior to people receiving a service to ensure their needs could be met. Detailed care plans were in place and records were updated following reviews or changes in people’s needs. People were supported to access support from healthcare professionals where required.

People told us they were confident to raise any issues about their care. There was a complaints policy in place and there was evidence that complaints had been recorded, investigated and responded to.

The service had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided through seeking people’s feedback and carrying out audits. People told us they had seen improvements in their care and responsiveness of the manager. The manager had a vision for the future of the service and was taking steps to overcome identified challenges.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 November 2016

The service was safe

Risks to people safety were assessed and monitored with appropriate measures in place to minimise them.

Accidents and incidents were recorded to identify patterns and actions taken were documented.

Medicines were administered by trained staff and recorded properly.

There were sufficient staff in place to meet people’s needs. A contingency plan was in place in the event of an emergency, or if staff were delayed.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 November 2016

The service was effective.

Records did not demonstrate compliance with the Mental Capacity Act, but staff demonstrated good understanding of how it worked in practice.

Staff received appropriate induction and training for their role.

People were supported to have a meal of their choice. People’s dietary requirements were followed.

People had access to health care professionals and relevant services

Caring

Good

Updated 1 November 2016

The service was caring

Staff knew the people they supported well and processes ensured people and staff were a good match.

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by staff living and providing care in their homes.

People were consulted on their care and staff respected people’s religious and cultural needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving care.

Care plans were detailed reflected individual preferences. They were reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed.

There was a complaints policy in place and complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 November 2016

The service was well-led.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place and regularly asked for feedback from people and relatives.

Staff felt well supported and the manager sought their views in order to improve the service.

The manager had a vision for the future of the service and was taking steps to overcome identified challenges.