Archived: ADA Homecare Ltd

Updated 27 November 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 30 October 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because we needed to ensure the manager would be available.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and one expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection visit, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at notifications sent in to us by the manager, which gave us information about how incidents and accidents were managed. We also contacted the local authority safeguarding team about their views of the service and they did not have any concerns.

Before our visit, our expert by experience undertook telephone calls to nine people and nine relatives of other people who wanted their relatives to speak on their behalf. On 30 October 2018 we spoke with the manager, a care co-ordinator and one care worker. We looked at the care records for five people who used the service. We also looked at other records relating to the management and running of the service. These included two staff recruitment files, training records and a range of records relating to the running of the service including audits carried out by the manager.

Updated 27 November 2018

We inspected the service on 30 October 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is a small service and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own houses. Not everyone using ADA Homecare receives 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 take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection 38 people were using the service.

At our last inspection on 26 September 2017 we found that the provider needed to make improvements to the service safe and well-led key areas. We found at this inspection that improvements had been made.

The service did not have a registered manager, but the current manager was in the process of applying to be registered. The registered manager was also the registered provider. 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.

People told us they felt safe when they were supported by care workers. People told us they felt comfortable with the care workers. All staff had training about safeguarding people to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and knew how to report them. There were risk assessments in place to protect and promote people’s safety. People were advised about how to stay safe in their homes.

The service had recruitment procedures that ensured as far as possible that only suitable staff were employed. There were enough care workers to cover all the home care visits that were required.

People received the support they required to have their medicines. Care workers followed safe practice to protect people from the risk of infection.

On the very few occasions when things went wrong lessons were learnt and improvements were made.

The care people received was focused on their needs and preferences.

Care workers who supported people with preparing meals were trained in food hygiene. People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required.

Staff were supported to develop the skills and knowledge they needed to provide the care through training and supervision.

People were supported to access health services when they needed them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There was a strong culture within the service of treating people with dignity and respect. People’s views were sought and acted upon. People told us they were treated with dignity.

People’s care plans provided staff with detailed information and guidance about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and guidance from any professionals involved in their care. People and their relatives were involved in planning all aspects of their care and support and were able to make changes to how their care was provided. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure care met people's current needs.

People, relatives and staff knew how to raise concerns and make a complaint if they needed to and there was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

The manager and the staff team were knowledgeable about people's needs and key issues and challenges within the service. The manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and to ensure the values, aims and objectives of the service were met. This included audits of key aspects of the service. The registered manager provided strong leadership and support that was appreciated by staff.

Staff felt supported and valued and their efforts were acknowledged through employee of the month awards. The Staff received one to one supervision which gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information about possible areas for improvements.