You are here

Archived: Home Instead Senior Care: Maidenhead, Henley & Wallingford Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

Home Instead Senior Care provides both personal care, companionship and home help to people in their own homes. The office of the service is located in the central business district of Maidenhead in Berkshire and covers the geographical areas of Maidenhead, Henley, Wallingford and other small villages in the area. The service is part of a large franchise with more than 170 branches located across England. At the time of the inspection, the provider reported there were 22 people who used the service and 33 staff.

At the time of the inspection, there was 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 location was previously inspected twice under the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These inspections occurred on 19 February 2013 and 8 January 2014. At both prior inspections, the location was compliant with the outcomes that we inspected.

People received safe care from the service. The staff knew what abuse was, how to safeguard people in the event of suspected abuse and what organisations needed to be contacted. People had risk assessments, care plans and regular evaluation of their care to ensure their safety. Staffing deployment was satisfactory and calls were not cut short, missed and support workers fully utilised all available time at people’s houses. People were assisted with medicines out of pre-packaged blister packs from the local pharmacy, or independently managed their own medicines.

The service was effective in the care it provided to people. All staff undertook an extensive induction programme and experienced staff attended necessary training to ensure they could provide the best personal care for people. All staff received regular supervisions with the registered manager and were able to set and achieve their own employment goals. Performance reviews were conducted annually with six monthly reviews. Recruitment and selection of any staff member was robust and ensured safety for people who used the service. Consent was always gained from people before care was commenced and people’s right to refuse care was respected.

We found staff at Home Instead Senior Care were overwhelmingly caring, compassionate and committed to their roles. People we spoke with and feedback taken from our own survey and the provider’s surveys demonstrated people rated the care outstanding and would not hesitate to recommend the service to others. Staff often went beyond their role expectations to fulfil people’s preferences, prevent social isolation and ensure people had the chance to pursue their hobbies or favourite interests. Staff did not need to rely on the contents of care documentation to know the people they cared for, and were able to tell us this from their experience of looking after them. However all care documentation we viewed was up-to-date and fully completed. The staff told us they respected people’s privacy and dignity, and ensured that life in their homes was as close as possible to being independent. People were able to say how they liked their care, and the service would accommodate their requests every time.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People and relatives had the ability to share their compliments, concerns and complaints in an open and transparent manner by communicating directly with the staff. People told us they would speak to office staff or the managers if they had a concern or complaint, but never had the requirement to do so. People also told us there was good communication from everyone who worked at the service, especially when something different needed to occur in exceptional circumstances.

People, relatives and staff we surveyed and spok

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and neglect.

People's care was based on assessment of their risks.

Staff deployment was satisfactory and recruitment of staff was robust.

People's medicines were safely administered.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff who were appropriately trained and skilled.

People's consent was always obtained and respected by staff.

People were supported to have sufficient food and fluids.

People were supported to have holistic healthcare in the community.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was caring.

People and others told us staff were always compassionate and genuine.

People had their say in what care they wanted and when they wanted it altered.

People's privacy and dignity was always respected.

People's end of life care was dignified and peaceful.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People's care was personalised and centred on their needs.

People had the chance to provide feedback and make complaints.

People's feedback was acknowledged and reviewed by managers.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 June 2016

The service was well-led.

People consistently provided positive feedback about the service and staff.

People were encouraged and supported to be involved in their local communities.

The service maintained a strong presence in the adult social care field.

People were assured care was high quality by internal and external audits of the service.

Managers were actively involved in all aspects of the service and care provided to people.