You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The inspection visit took place on 05 July and was announced. This inspection was the first inspection since the service was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 20 July 2017. The service was previously registered at a different address where we inspected on 4 February 2016. At that time we found the service to be compliant with regulations and rated it overall 'good'.

Eldercare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses, flats in the community and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults, and children. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements.

Not everyone using Eldercare 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 provide any wider social care we also take this into account. CQC does not regulate premises used for people supported in their own homes; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support. At the time of the visit there were 31 people who used the service.

The service had a registered manager however they were not present at the time of the inspection visit. 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.

There were policies and procedures on how the service protected people against bullying, harassment, avoidable harm and abuse. Care staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to report concerns. Staff had sought advice from other health and social care professionals where necessary. There were risk assessments which had been undertaken. Plans to minimise or remove risks had been drawn up and reviewed in line with the organisation’s policy. These were robust and covered specific risks around people’s care and specific activities they undertook in a person-centred manner.

We received significantly positive comments from people about the caring nature of the staff team.

There was a medicines policy in place and staff had been trained to safely support people with their medicines.

The service had recruitment policies and procedures in place to help ensure safety in the recruitment of staff. These had been followed to ensure staff were recruited safely for the protection and wellbeing of people who used the service. Records we saw and conversations with staff showed the service had adequate care staff to ensure that people's needs were sufficiently met. Staff had visited people at agreed times.

Staff skills knowledge, training and support demonstrated a commitment to providing a good quality of care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However; knowledge and application of the mental capacity principles required further improvements. The care manager informed us people's consent was sought. However, care records did not demonstrate how mental capacity had been considered. We have made a recommendation about staff knowledge and understanding on the subject of mental capacity and best interests’ decisions.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported.

We found people had been assisted to have access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of service provided to people. These included regula

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

This service was safe.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe. Feedback was positive. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.

Risks to the health, safety and well-being of people who used the service were assessed and plans to minimise the risk had been put in place.

People�s medicines had been safely managed. Staff had been trained in the safe administration of medicines.

Staff had been safely recruited and disciplinary measures were in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

This service was effective.

There was a policy on mental capacity and seeking consent. However; improvements were required in relation to the understanding of mental capacity principles and its application in the service. Staff had not received ongoing mental capacity training

Staff had received training, induction and supervision to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles safely.

People were adequately supported with their nutritional needs.

People�s health needs were met and specialist professionals were involved appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke highly of care staff and felt their family members were treated in a kind and caring manner.

People's personal information was managed in a way that protected their privacy and dignity.

Staff knew people and spoke respectfully of the people they supported. The service supported people to express their views and to make choices.

People's independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People had records of care which included essential details about their needs and outcomes they wanted to achieve. Records were comprehensive and detailed.

There was a person-centred approach to care planning and care was reviewed regularly with people and their relatives. People were able to give feedback about their care services and staff who supported them.

There was a complaints policy and people's relatives told us they felt they could raise concerns about their family member�s care and treatment.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 August 2018

There was a registered manager in post. People gave positive feedback about the company.

Feedback from staff regarding management and the culture in the service was positive. Staff had been provided with oversight on their role.

People and their relatives had been consulted about the care provided.

Policies for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service were in place.