You are here

HF Trust - Bedfordshire DCA Good

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

This announced comprehensive inspection took place on 28 September 2018 when we carried out a visit to the office. We also carried out telephone calls to people who used the service and their relatives on 03 October 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to people who may have a learning disability and associated needs.

Not everyone using HF Trust-Bedfordshire DCA receives a 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.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There were two registered managers 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.

People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and they felt confident in how to report these types of concerns.

People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.

There were sufficient staff with the correct skill mix on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed.

Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Effective infection control measures were in place to protect people.

People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.

Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure that they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were also supported with regular supervisions.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, some people were independent with this but staff gave support when required.

People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including community nurses and doctors to make sure that people received additional healthcare to meet their needs.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. Care plans were written in a person-centred way and were responsive to people’s needs.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaints had been responded to appropriately.

Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement. People and their relatives were asked for feedback.

People are supported to have maximum choice and contr

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was safe

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from harm and abuse and processes were in place to report any concerns.

Staff had been recruited using a robust recruitment process. There were enough trained staff to support people with their needs.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines.

Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs had been assessed prior to them receiving visits.

Staff had attended a variety of training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with regular supervision.

People could make choices about their food and drink and were provided with support when required.

People had access to health care professionals when required.

Consent to care was sought in line with legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were able to make decisions about their daily activities.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was responsive.

Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people�s individual requirements.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a complaints system in place and people were aware of this.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was well led.

People and their relatives knew the managers and were able to contact them when required.

The provider had a clear vision, and were open and transparent.

Quality monitoring systems were in place and were effective.

Staff were involved in developing the service.