You are here

Hummingbird Home Care Office Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The inspection took place on the 23 and 30 July 2018 and was announced.

This was the first inspection of Hummingbird Home Care Limited Office since the service was registered in May 2017.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses in the community. It provides a service to people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder as well as younger and older adults with physical disabilities, sensory impairments or complex health care needs.

Not everyone using Hummingbird Home Care Limited Office receives a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing 'personal care' to 17 people who were living in their own homes within the Warrington and Lymm area of Cheshire.

The service is provided by Hummingbird Home Care Limited and coordinated from a business office in the centre of Warrington.

During this inspection we found a breach of Regulation 18 (Notification of other incidents) of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We noted that the registered person had not always notified the Commission of incidents or allegations of abuse. We have written to the provider regarding their failure to notify us.

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.

We found that people’s needs had been assessed and planned for and that a range of risk assessments had been completed to ensure staff were aware of how to keep both them and people using the service safe.

Staff supported people with their medication when necessary and assisted people to maintain good nutritional intake and hydration to safeguard their health and well-being.

Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to provide people's care and support. Robust recruitment procedures had also been established to ensure the suitability of prospective staff was checked prior to employment. For instance, previous employment references had been sought and a criminal conviction check undertaken.

People were positive about the approach and attitude of staff. They told us that overall, they received support from a regular team of staff who knew them and their needs well. We found that people’s dignity and privacy was respected and promoted by the service. Likewise, people’s diverse needs were considered by the service and responded to in a person-centred manner.

A programme of staff training and development had been established which was subject to ongoing review and expansion. Staff had received access to a range of induction, mandatory, service specific and qualification level training in addition to formal supervision and informal spot checks. This helped to equip staff with the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure people received appropriate care.

The provider had developed a policy and obtained guidance for staff relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager and staff spoken with understood the diverse needs of people they cared for and the action that should be taken in the event a person lacked capacity. People told us that they were empowered to exercise choice and control over their lives and valued the opportunity to live independently in their own homes.

An accessible complaints procedure had been developed and people had been provided with a copy of the complaints procedure for reference. People told us they knew how to complain in the event they needed to raise a conc

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was safe.

Policies and procedures were in place to provide guidance to staff about safeguarding adults and staff understood how to recognise and respond to allegations or suspicion of abuse.

Recruitment procedures were well managed to minimise the risk of unsuitable people being employed to work with vulnerable people.

Staff were aware of current risks to people using the service and the required actions to keep people safe.

Systems had been established and further initiatives were being implemented to help protect people from the risks associated with unsafe medicines management.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had access to induction, mandatory and other training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

The needs of people had been assessed to ensure the service was responsive to changing needs.

Policies and procedures relating to the Mental Capacity Act had been developed to provide guidance to staff on this protective legislation.

Staff supported people with their nutrition and assisted people to maintain their health and well-being.

Systems were in place to liaise with GPs and to work in partnership with other health and social care professionals when necessary.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were able to express their views and were actively involved in decisions about their care.

People were treated with respect and their dignity and privacy was respected and promoted by the service.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised to their needs.

Care planning process had been established to ensure the diverse needs of people using the service were identified and acted upon.

Accessible systems had been developed for managing and responding to formal complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 13 September 2018

The service was not always well led.

The registered person had not notified the CQC of safeguarding incidents in relation to people using the service.

The registered person was transparent in their plans to develop the service. Areas such as governance, management information systems and policies and procedures were being developed to ensure continuous improvement and effective monitoring of the service.

Staff were generally positive and confirmed they felt supported by the registered manager who was committed to providing a quality service.