You are here

Penhellis Community Care Ltd (Roche) Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

This inspection took place on the 10, 11, 24 and 31 July 2018 and was announced in accordance with our current methodology for the inspection of domiciliary care services. Not everyone using the service 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.

Penhellis Community Care Ltd (Roche) is a domiciliary care service that provides support to over 150 people living in the east of Cornwall. The service normally provided visits of between 20 to 60 minutes to support people living in their own homes. This service has not been inspected before as it was previously a sub office of Penhellis Community Care Limited which was rated as good overall when last inspected in March 2017.

The service had two registered managers at the time of our inspection. One registered manager was based in the service full time and provided day to day leadership to the staff team. The other registered manager was also the providers nominated individual and was based in the provider’s Helston office but visited this service regularly. 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 roles and responsibilities of each registered manager were well understood and clearly defined. The registered managers were supported by three roster supervisors who were responsible for overseeing and planning care in specific geographical areas. Staff said they were supported by the office team and told us, “The manager is really good”, “The registered manager is very supportive” and “This is the best agency I have worked for.”

People and their relatives were complimentary of the quality of care and support the service provided. Comments received included, “I feel safe with them”, “I feel mum is in safe hands”, “They treat me like one of the family. They all have a laugh” and “[The Staff] are very caring and make a big fuss of my mum”. Staff understood their role in protecting people from abuse and discrimination. Safeguarding procedures were well understood by managers and staff told us any concerns they reported were acted upon.

There were sufficient staff available to provide all planned care visits and the service’s visit schedules were well organised. Staff were provided with appropriate travel time between consecutive care visits. Daily care records and call monitoring information showed visits were routinely provided on time and for the full duration.

Staff recruitment records showed all necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff reported that they were well supported by their managers and that team meetings were held regularly. Staff comments included, “We have regular staff meetings and often discuss safeguarding issues”, “I definitely feel supported” and “My supervisor is really nice and approachable.”

The service had appropriate induction training processes in place and all staff were sufficiently skilled to meet people’s needs. Records showed staff training was regularly updated and people told us “They’re very well trained. I can’t fault them.”

Care plans were available in each person’s home and provided staff with sufficient detailed information and guidance. These documents had been updated regularly and included specific information on the support staff should provide during each planned care visit. Information about visits where the service was providing respite support for family carers was less detailed. This issue was discussed with the registered manager. They assured us they would update these care plans to provide staff with specific guidance on how to meet people’s individual needs during these longer support v

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff available to provide all planned care visits.

Visit schedules included appropriate amounts of travel time between consecutive visits. The service operated a fleet of lease cars to minimise the risk that vehicle unreliability would lead to missed care visits.

Recruitment procedures were safe and staff understood both the providers and local authority’s procedures for the reporting of suspected abuse.

Staff supported people to safely manage their medicines and necessary risk assessments had been completed.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was effective. Staff were well trained and there were appropriate systems in place for the induction of new members of staff. Staff new to the care sector were supported to complete the care certificate.

Team meetings were held regularly and staff supervision needs had been met.

Staff and managers understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and there were systems in place to record people’s consent to planned care.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was caring. People received support from staff they knew well and whose company they enjoyed.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and where people had expressed preferences in relation to the gender of their care staff these needs had been met.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was responsive. People’s care plans were detailed and personalised. These documents contained sufficient information to enable staff to meet people’s identified care needs.

People understood how to make complaints about the service’s performance and there were appropriate systems in place to ensure any complaints received were investigated.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 October 2018

The service was well led. The registered managers had provided staff with appropriate leadership and support and staff were well motivated.

Quality assurance systems were appropriate and people’s feedback was valued.

There was an on-call system in place to support staff outside of office hours.