You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

This inspection started with a visit to the office location on 18 July 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the people we needed to speak with were available. On 23 July 2018 we made calls to people who used the service, relatives and staff to gain their views and experiences. This was their first inspection since they registered with CQC in August 2017.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. This service is a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the service was providing a service to 41 people who received the regulated activity of personal care. The services were managed from an office in Bristol.

There was not registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. A manager had been appointed and was in the process of completing their induction.

The feedback we received from everyone we spoke with was very positive throughout. Those people who used the service including relatives and staff, expressed satisfaction and spoke highly of all staff and support provided.

The safety of people who used the service was taken seriously and staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people’s health and wellbeing. There were systems in place to ensure that potential risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were identified and addressed.

The staff were motivated and proud of the service. A programme of training and supervision enabled them to provide a good quality service to people. Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and, worked to ensure people's rights were respected.

Staff understood people’s care needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. People received consistent support from staff who knew them well. People had positive, caring relationships with the staff and were confident in the service. There was an emphasis on key principles of care such as compassion, respect and dignity and promoting independence. People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was always respected.

People received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care package amended to meet their changing needs. The service was flexible and responded very positively to people’s requests. People who used the service felt able to make requests and express their opinions and views.

People benefitted from a service that was well led. The vision, values and culture of the provider were clearly communicated to and understood by staff. The provider had implemented a programme of ‘planned growth’ that had been well managed. They were committed to continuous improvement and demonstrated strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service. There were effective quality assurance systems and processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was safe.

Staff had received training in safeguarding so they would recognise abuse and know what to do if they had any concerns.

People received care from staff who took steps to protect them from unnecessary harm. Risks had been appropriately assessed and staff had been provided with clear guidance on the management of identified risks.

People were protected through the services recruitment procedures. These procedures helped ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines.

Staff took measures to protect people from the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who had received sufficient training to meet their individual needs.

People were cared for by staff who received regular and effective support and supervision.

Staff promoted and respected people’s choices and decisions. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Where it formed part of people’s care, they were supported with food and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was caring.

The staff were committed to providing care that was kind, respectful and dignified.

People who used the service valued the relationships they had with staff and expressed satisfaction with the care they received.

People were pleased with the consistency of their care staff and felt that their care was provided in the way they wanted it to be.

People felt all staff treated them with kindness and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was responsive.

Changes in people’s needs were quickly recognised and appropriate prompt action taken, including the involvement of external professionals where necessary.

People felt the service was very flexible and based on their personal wishes and preferences. Where changes in people’s care packages were requested, these were made quickly and without any difficulties.

People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints because the service viewed concerns and complaints as part of driving improvement.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2018

The service was well led

The service promoted strong values and a person-centred culture. Staff were proud to work for the service and were supported in understanding the values of the organisation.

There was strong emphasis on continual improvement and best practice which benefited people and staff.

There were good systems to assure quality and identify any potential improvements to the service. This meant people benefited from a constantly improving service that they were at the heart of.