Rainbow Living

Updated 30 April 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type: This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. CQC does not regulate the buildings in which people live, therefore this would not form part of our inspection. It provides a service to younger and older adults. At the time of inspection five people were using the service.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of inspection. The manager, when registered, and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.’

Notice of inspection: We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection visit because it is a small service. We needed to be sure that the manager would be in the office. Inspection activity started on 6 March 2019 with a visit to the office location. We made telephone calls to people, staff and relatives on 7 March 2019 and visited one person using the service on 8 March 2019.

What we did: Before the inspection the provider sent us a Provider Information Return. Providers are required to send us information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

We reviewed information we held about the service such as any notifications submitted by the provider. A notification is information about events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We contacted commissioners to seek their feedback. We received no information of concern.

During the site visit we spoke with the manager, the operations director and the care co-ordinator. We reviewed a range of records. These included two people’s care records. We also looked at three staff files to check staff recruitment and their training records. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider. After the site visit we spoke with one person and two relatives of people who use the service and two support workers.

Updated 30 April 2019

About the service: Rainbow Living 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 both younger and older adults. Packages of care varied from a few hours per week to 24 hours support. At the time of inspection five people were using the service.

Not everyone using Rainbow Living receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (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.

People's experience of using this service: At this inspection we found the evidence the service met all the characteristics of Good in all areas inspected. More information is in the full report.

People told us they felt safe and were well-supported. There were sufficient staff hours available to meet people's needs in a safe and consistent way, and staff roles were flexible to allow this. Staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse.

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people’s care and support needs. They received the training they needed along with regular supervision and support. The service assisted people, where required, in meeting their health care and nutritional needs. Staff worked as a team and with assistance from other professionals when necessary, in co-ordinating people’s care.

Staff had developed a good rapport with people, were patient and caring in their approach and treated people with kindness and respect.

Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way. Robust risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.

People were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give their views about the service. Although formal questionnaires had not yet been sent due to the infancy of the service, management ensured contact with people and their families on a regular basis, seeking their views and input.

People knew how to make a complaint, although no formal complaints had been made to the service. There was an effective complaints process in place to deal with any complaints that might be raised in the future.

People and their relatives told us they were satisfied with the care provided. They said that there was good communication between themselves and the service.

The manager undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. Plans were in place to grow the service at a steady pace. We received positive feedback from everybody we spoke with about management and leadership within the service.

Communication was effective and staff and people were listened to. Staff said they felt well-supported and were aware of their responsibilities to share any concerns about the care provided. Staff told us they could approach the registered manager and other senior staff with any concerns they had about their work.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: This was our first inspection of the service.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection to award the service its first rating.

Follow up: We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.