We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Home Instead, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to 19 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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
We have made a recommendation about checking medicines information and investigating medicines related incidents.
Staff knew about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. People had risk assessments to keep them safe from the risks of harm they may face. Staff were recruited safely. People were protected from risks associated with the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded and action taken to prevent reoccurrence.
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. Care staff sought consent from people before delivering care.
People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff understood how to deliver a fair and equal service. Staff knew the people they supported well. People and relatives were included in decision making about the care being delivered.
Care was personalised and people’s choices were promoted. The provider included companionship in care plans and people were supported to maintain their social and cultural links. People were supported with end of life care when appropriate in line with their wishes.
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the leadership in the service. The provider understood their responsibility to notify relevant authorities about safeguarding concerns and incidents. The provider had a system of checking the quality of service provided including obtaining feedback from people using the service and staff. People received joined up care because the provider worked in partnership with other agencies and professionals.
Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was good (published 03 January 2019).
Why we inspected
This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.
The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provide a rating for those key questions. Only parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions were considered, and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.
Follow up We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of the inspection it was providing a service to 12 people.
There was not a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The service had two managers in the role and they had started the process to apply for the position of the registered managers.
The service was exceptionally caring. Care staff knew the importance of developing good working relationships with the people they looked after and ensured they provided person centred care based on their specific needs. The feedback we received from people, and their relatives, and health and social care professionals was overwhelmingly positive. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s interests, family life and life history. The service had helped a person actively to make contact with a cultural group they were previously involved in, so there could be sense of belonging for the person. The service promoted people to live as independently as possible at home and accessing the community. The service worked with other agencies to support people to be safe in the community. People were supported by a team of regular staff that they knew and who they said were kind and caring. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.
People’s needs were assessed and their preferences identified as much as possible across all aspects of their care. Risks were identified and plans were in place to monitor and reduce risks. People had access to relevant health professionals when they needed them. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed by the service. Staff had been recruited safely with appropriate checks on their backgrounds completed. Medicines were stored and administered safely.
Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). MCA is legislation protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves. People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs.
People were supported to access activities within the community. People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.
The service had a complaints procedure in place and we found that complaints were investigated and where possible resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. The service had end of life policies and procedures in place.
Staff told us the service had an open and inclusive atmosphere and the management team were approachable and open. The service had various quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place so the voices of staff, people and their relatives were heard and acted on to shape the service.