Background to this inspection
Updated
25 May 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.
The inspection took place on 2 February 2016 and was announced. We told the registered manager one day prior to the inspection that we would be coming, so they and the staff were available to speak with us. The inspection was conducted by one inspector.
We reviewed information received about the service, for example the statutory notifications the provider had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Before the inspection the provider completed 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. We found the PIR reflected the service provided. We also contacted the local authority commissioners to find out their views of the service provided. These are people who contract care and support services paid for by the local authority. They had no concerns about the service.
Before the office visit we sent surveys to people who used the service to obtain their views around the quality of care they received. Surveys were returned from six people who used the service, 10 staff members and two community professionals who were treating people. Community professionals are people who have expertise in particular areas of health, such as nurses or consultant doctors. We also spoke with two health care professionals before our inspection. During our inspection we spoke with five people who used the service in the provider’s care office. We also spoke with the registered manager (who was also the provider) and the deputy manager. Following our inspection we spoke with two relatives, a team leader, and two support workers.
We reviewed four people’s support plans to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated, including medicine records, staff recruitment records, the provider’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.
Updated
25 May 2016
Lucy Glyn Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care to people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, who live in their own homes. At the time of our visit the service supported six people who received 24 hour care in their own homes.
We inspected the service on 2 February 2016. The inspection was announced. This was to ensure the registered manager and staff were available when we visited, to talk with us about the service.
The service has 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.
Care was person centred and was planned to meet people’s individual needs, abilities and preferences. Health professionals commented on the high standard of care provided. People received support based on their individual needs, which helped to improve the quality of their lives. People were supported to participate in activities that were meaningful to them. Staff used different methods to obtain feedback from people, which were tailored to meet people’s individual needs. People were encouraged to be involved in planning how they were cared for and supported.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Staff demonstrated they understood the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding potential abuse. Risks to people’s health and welfare were assessed and support plans gave staff instructions on how to minimise identified risks, so staff knew how to support people safely.
There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. The registered manager checked staff’s suitability to deliver care safely and considered the views of people who used the service in their recruitment decisions. Staff received training and support that ensured people’s needs were met effectively. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion, and treated people in a way that respected their dignity and promoted their independence.
Management and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and supported people in line with these principles. The registered manager had made DoLS applications where potential restrictions on people’s liberty had been identified. However, these applications had not yet been authorised. Where people did not have capacity to make decisions, decisions were made in people’s best interests.
People’s health needs were monitored and they were referred to external healthcare professionals when a need was identified. Healthcare professionals were positive about the care provided.
People told us they would raise concerns or complaints with staff or managers if they needed to. People were encouraged to share their views about the quality of service provided through regular reviews and questionnaires.
The registered manager and the deputy manager maintained an open culture in the service and they were accessible to people. There was good communication between staff members and staff were encouraged to share ideas to make improvements to the service.
The registered manager was dedicated to providing quality care to people. They had used guidance and research to provide a service that stimulated people and kept people safe. They followed good practice initiatives and worked alongside other organisations and health care agencies to develop innovative ways of supporting people. There were processes in place to ensure good standards of care were maintained for people.