We carried out a review of the data available to us about High Peak Carers 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 High Peak Carers, you can give feedback on this service.
High Peak Carers is a domiciliary care agency proving care and support to people in their own homes in the community. The service provides support to prominently older people, including people living with dementia.
On the day of our inspection 76 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they were safe. The providers processes and practices protected people from abuse. There were enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met. Recruitment procedures followed safe practices. Staff told us they were given time to provide care and support that was unrushed. People’s medicines were managed safely, the provider was changing the systems at the time of our inspection to improve the documentation to ensure consistency. Risks assessments were in place and risks were managed in a way that did not restrict people’s freedom. These were being improved at the time of our visit. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.
Staff supported people to make their own decisions and choices. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable and understood the principles of The Mental Capacity Act.
Peoples nutritional needs were met. People who required support with their diet had their needs met by staff that understood their dietary requirements. Staff received effective training to fulfil their roles and responsibilities and told us they were well supported and supervised by the management.
People spoke very positively about the care and support they received. Care staff were described as exceptional, being very well trained, professional in their attitude and very caring towards people. Everyone had a small number of regular care staff who they really valued. People told us staff were kind, caring and considerate. People also confirmed staff maintained their dignity and respected them. People and their relatives we spoke with said staff were dedicated and passionate about providing good standards of care and support.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans were being improved at the time of our inspection and were to be more detailed and person-centred. They were being developed with the people who used the service to ensure their wishes and choices were captured and followed. People were supported at the end of their lives.
There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. The registered manager kept detailed records of concerns that evidenced any issues were actioned promptly and satisfactorily.
People told us they were listened to and had opportunity to raise concerns if required. People we spoke with said they had no concerns. They said the service was excellent. One person had raised a concern and told us it was dealt with immediately by the management and resolved.
People’s feedback was used to make changes to the service.
The home had a registered manager who conducted a range of audits in areas such as, medicine management, health and safety, care plans and daily records documentation. We saw the monitoring identified areas for improvement and any actions raised as part of the audits were addressed.
More information in Detailed Findings below:
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published October 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. We plan to complete a further inspection in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated good. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
We carried out this inspection on 30 August 2016. It was an announced inspection, which meant the provider knew we would be visiting. This was because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to talk with us.
At our last inspection on 21 October 2013, we found that the service was meeting all standards assessed. It was compliant with the regulations and no concerns were identified.
A registered manager was 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 service is run.
Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. They had undergone a comprehensive induction programme and, where necessary, had received additional training specific to the needs of the people they were supporting. Communication was effective and regular meetings were held to discuss issues and share best practice. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and spoke enthusiastically about the work they did and the people they cared for.
The provider had detailed policies and procedures relating to medicine management. Staff understanding and competency regarding the management of medicines was subject to regular monitoring checks and medicine training was updated appropriately.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service and used effective systems for gaining consent. Individual care plans, based on a full assessment of need, were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. This helped ensure that personal care was provided in a structured and consistent manner. Risk assessments were also in place to effectively identify and manage potential risks.
Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.
Systems were in place to effectively monitor the safety and quality of the service and to gather the views and experiences of people and their relatives. The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s changing needs and any issues or concerns raised. People and their relatives told us they were confident that any concerns they might have would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.
We found that systems were in place for assessing people's needs and planning and delivering their care. This included guidance for staff to ensure they were aware of any specific health conditions or disabilities including signs of deterioration in and what to do in case of an emergency occurring. This meant that people received consistent, safe and appropriate care that met their needs and ensured their welfare.
People's consent was obtained before they received care from High Peak Carers. We saw that appropriate procedures were used if people could not consent for themselves, for example due to dementia.
We found enough appropriately trained and experinced staff were provided to deliver people's care at the service.
We found that a complaints procedure was in place and that all comments, commendations and concerns about the service were recorded. People receiving support told us they had not needed to complain but they who to contact if they did have any concerns.
We saw that people's wishes were respected, and that they were consulted about the care they received from High Peak Carers. We also saw that recruitment procedures helped to ensure the right people were employed, and that staff received appropriate training and support.
We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs. We found, however, that some care files did not contain enough information, for example about health conditions, to ensure that appropriate care was always given.
We saw that the same staff were rota'd to provide people's care, so that they were familiar to them and knew their needs well. We also found that staffing levels for each person were safe and appropriate to meet their needs.