1 August 2018
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.
This inspection took place on 18 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the service short notice of our visit to the office, because we wanted to make sure the people we needed to speak with were available. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. This was the first inspection of the service since its registration with CQC under this provider. The service had previously been registered with CQC under a different provider.
Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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 reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.
We spoke with the registered manager, regional manager, the care co-ordinator, a field supervisor and two members of staff in the office. We then telephoned a further five staff.
We looked at the care records for three people and other associated documentation. We also looked at records relating to the running of the service. This included staffing rotas, policies and procedures, quality checks that had been completed, supervision and training information for staff and recruitment records for three members of staff.
We spoke with three people who used the service and six relatives about the care and support they received. This was completed on the telephone on the 19 and 23 July 2018. We also received an email from a relative and a member of staff shortly after the inspection. We emailed two health and social care professionals but did not receive a response. You can see what people told us in the main body of the report.
We provided feedback of our inspection findings to the registered manager on the telephone and via email on the 24 July 2018.
1 August 2018
This inspection started with a visit to the registered office on Wednesday 18 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the management, staff and people we needed to speak with were available. On 19 and 23 July 2018 we made calls to people who use the service and staff to gain their views and experiences. We provided feedback to the registered manager on the 24 July 2018 about our findings.
This was the first inspection of Berkeley Home Health. They were previously registered under a different provider. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older and younger adults. At the time of this inspection the service was providing support to 41 people. They were providing on average of 430 hours of care each week. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 home is run.
Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and knew what to do if they were concerned about the welfare of people or an allegation of abuse had been made. People had risk assessments to keep them safe whilst receiving personal care. This included environmental risk assessments. People told us they felt safe whilst being supported by staff. Staff were recruited in a safe and consistent manner. Medicines were managed safely with people receiving their medicines appropriately. Regular medicine audits were being carried out.
There was sufficient staff to meet people’s individual needs. People told us staff turned up on time and stayed for the full duration of the visit. Staffing was planned flexibly to meet people’s individual needs.
People had access to a range of health professionals when required. Some people looked after their own health care appointments. People’s nutritional needs were being met. People were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and committed to providing care which was tailored to the person. People were treated with kindness and compassion.
People had their needs assessed and clear plans of care were in place about how the person wanted to be supported. These were personalised and up to date. People were very much involved in their care. There was an emphasis on encouraging people to be independent as possible enabling them to live independently in their own homes. People felt confident that their care needs would be met and gave very positive feedback about the staff who supported them. It was evident the service was very responsive to people’s changing needs and adjustments were made to their care and support to enable them to continue to live the life they wanted.
Staff were consistently caring and supportive and demonstrated a good understanding of their roles in supporting people. Staff received training and support that was relevant to their roles and the people they supported. Staff were passionate about delivering care that was tailored to the person.
People were provided with a safe, effective, caring and very responsive service that was well led. The registered provider was aware of the importance of reviewing the quality of the service.