Network Healthcare Professionals Limited - Plymouth

Network Healthcare Professionals Limited - Plymouth is a domiciliary care agency. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 6 people, including 2 people who required 24-hour support, who were in receipt of the regulated activity of personal care.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were sufficient staff employed to cover the visits required by people.

Staff were provided with adequate travel time to enable them to carry out visits at the time of the person’s choosing. Staff had sufficient time to meet people’s needs. People confirmed their visits were made as planned.

Risks were identified, assessed and recorded. Any environmental risks to visiting staff were also assessed.

There were systems to help protect people from abuse and to investigate any allegations, incidents or accidents.

People told us they felt safe when being supported by staff. One relative told us, “Yes, absolutely, I am very happy. The big thing is that they treat (Person’s name) with care and dignity” and “Yes, my husband feels safe, and they are very kind and friendly.”

There were robust systems and processes in place when staff supported people with their financial transactions, such as purchasing shopping etc.

Care plans were completed for each person and contained details of the person’s needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed regularly to help ensure they were up to date and relevant.

Recruitment processes were robust, and new staff had sufficient support during their induction before working alone with people. Staff told us they felt well supported at all times. One told us, “There is always someone we can call any time of day. If necessary, they will come out and help us.”

The provider had implemented effective quality assurance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. Spot checks were carried out to monitor staff performance. Audits of all aspects of the service were completed by the registered manager and shared with the provider. There was a service improvement plan in place to help ensure the service remained compliant with the regulations.

People told us they were regularly asked for their views and experiences of the service provided. Comments included, “Oh yes, they do send surveys, we had one about a fortnight ago and they often ring up and ask us if there is anything they can do to improve” and “Yes, they send surveys and ring to check in with me.”

People and their relatives spoke positively about staff and told us they were happy with the service they received. We were told staff were friendly, they were treated with kindness and compassion and their privacy and dignity was respected. Comments included, “I am very appreciative of care and I have no problem with it at all and some of them go above and beyond - they are wonderful.”

People were supported by staff who had been appropriately trained and were skilled in their role. When a new package of care was accepted, for a person with specific care needs, staff were provided with the required training to help ensure they were competent to meet those needs.

People received support to maintain good health and were supported to maintain a balanced diet where this was part of their care plan. Staff monitored some people’s food and drink intake as well as their weight. They also worked closely with healthcare professionals to help ensure people were as healthy as possible.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people's diverse needs and promoting independence. People were always asked for their consent prior to care being provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff worked closely with the Court of Protection when required to restrict people in any way.

There were clear lines of responsibility which were known and understood by the staff team.

There was a registered manager at the time of this inspection.

For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (18 August 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated as Good:

The inspection took place on 3 August 2018 and was announced. The provider was given short notice because the location was a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office.

Network Healthcare Professionals provides a personal care service to people living in their own home. On the day of the inspection one person was supported by Network Healthcare Professionals with their personal care needs.

Domiciliary care services provide personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care. Network Healthcare Professionals Limited is registered to provide personal care to adults and people over 65 years who may have sensory impairments, physical disabilities, learning difficulties or autistic disorder.

The service had 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.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service was well-led with person-centred values and a vision to provide high quality care. The management team were open and approachable. The registered manager listened to feedback and reflected on how the service could be further improved. Staff and relatives confirmed the service was well organised.

People were protected from harm and discrimination. People’s human rights were protected because the code of practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was understood and followed. People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks related to their health needs were known.

People were treated equally and fairly. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example using simple questions. Verbal information and explanations about care were given to people with cognitive difficulties and if appropriate the service was able to develop pictorial care plans people would understand.

People were supported by staff who were compassionate, kind and caring. All staff demonstrated kindness for people through their conversations and interactions. People were supported by a consistent staff group who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. As far as possible, people were actively involved in making simple choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.

People had support plans which described how they liked their needs met and their individual routines. People’s support was reviewed regularly to ensure the service provided to them changed as they did. Health care professionals monitored people’s health and were involved in reviews of their care.

Risks associated with people’s care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure their freedom was promoted. People’s independence was encouraged where possible, and staff helped people feel valued by engaging people in everyday tasks where they were able to.

The provider and management team wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that checks had been undertaken. Staff underwent a thorough induction, interview and ongoing training to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their unique needs. People led full and active lives enjoying a variety of individualised activities such as arts and crafts, music, looking at books and beauty treatments. Exercise and healthy eating were encouraged to maintain people’s well-being.

Safe infection control practices were followed where required. People, and those who mattered to them were involved in decisions about their care.

There had been no complaints made to the service but policies and procedures were in place should people, relatives or professionals wish to raise concerns.

We saw that people had specific and individualistic care plans. These were updated daily in accordance to people's wishes. Care plans had been in text format but easy read care plans with pictures were being designed by the registered manager. This demonstrated that there had been an awareness of the relevance for people to read and understand their own care plans and action taken to enable it.

Support staff worked in teams to support the individuals and promotion of independence was evident from the care plans viewed. Staff had all received a thorough core training programme that included safeguarding and attended regular updates.

There were sufficient support workers to meet people's needs and appropriate background checks had been completed on all staff. Audits were in place to continually monitor and assess the quality of care and support provided.

On the first day of the inspection we visited the office, reviewed records, met with and spoke with two members of staff. On the second day of the inspection we spoke with a relative, a commissioner of the service and two members of staff.

One relative we spoke with told us that they were very happy with the service, which they described as 'extremely reliable'. They told us their family member was always treated with respect and dignity by staff and that communication with the staff team was good. They added, 'They have very high standards. X has received excellent care from them'. We spoke with a commissioner of the service. They told us the service provided was to a 'very good standard'. They told us that the service was flexible and that staff had a 'problem solving approach'.

We found the service compliant with the outcomes we inspected. People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.