You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

This inspection took place on 25 September 2018 and was announced. We informed the provider 24 hours in advance of our visit that we would be inspecting. This was to ensure there was somebody at the location to facilitate our inspection. This was the first inspection since the service was registered on 3 November 2017.

Nissi Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It is registered to provide personal care to older people, younger adults, people with dementia, people with a mental health condition, a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, an eating disorder, a physical disability, and sensory impairment.

Not everyone using Nissi Home Care 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. At the time of inspection, the service was providing personal care to three people living in their own houses and flats in the community.

The service had a registered manager 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 and relatives told us they trusted staff and felt safe with them. Staff knew their role in identifying and reporting abuse and poor care and knew how to escalate concerns. The provider maintained detailed risk assessments that gave information on risks to people and measures staff needed to take to ensure safe care. Staff had a good understanding of risks to people and how to meet their needs safely. There were systems in place for safe medicines management. Suitable and sufficient staff were recruited to ensure people at risk were supported by staff that were safe. Staff were trained in infection control and followed safe infection control practices to prevent the spread of infection. There were systems in place to report, record, investigate incidents and learn lessons from them.

People’s needs were assessed and they told us staff met their individualised needs. Staff were provided with regular support and sufficient training to do their jobs effectively. People told us their dietary needs were met. The registered manager supported people to access healthcare services when requested. Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and people told us staff gave them choices and encouraged them to make decisions.

People and relatives told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and were respectful. Staff were trained in dignity and privacy and understood the importance of providing dignified care. People’s cultural and religious needs were recorded and met. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.

People’s care plans were comprehensive and personalised. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and were trained in person-centred care. People told us they received personalised care. Staff supported people in accessing community venues and activities when requested. The provider involved people and relatives where necessary in the care planning and reviews. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns but told us they had not made complaints. There were systems in place to support people with end of life care needs.

The registered manager had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and their responsibilities in notifying us of incidents. There were monitoring, auditing and evaluating systems in place to improve the quality and safety of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with staff. Staff had a good understanding of risks to people�s health, care and mobility needs. People�s risk assessments gave staff information on how to provide safe care. Staff knew their role in identifying and reporting abuse and poor care.

Although people did not require medicines management support, the provider had systems in place for safe medicines management. Suitable and sufficient staff were recruited to meet people�s needs safely.

Staff were trained in infection control and followed safe practices to prevent the spread of infection. The provider had processes in place to learn lessons from incidents.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed before they started receiving support. Staff had a good understanding of people�s needs. They received sufficient training and support to provide effective care.

The provider supported people to access healthcare services where requested. People told us their dietary needs were met.

People told us staff asked their permission before supporting them and gave them choices.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff encouraged people to express their views and involved them in the care planning process.

People received the same team of staff to support them. Staff spoke about people in a caring way. People�s cultural and religious needs were identified, recorded and met.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People and relatives told us they received personalised care. Their care plans were comprehensive and gave information to staff on how to provide person-centred care. Staff were trained in equality and diversity and treated people as individuals.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint but told us they had not made any complaints.

The provider had systems in place to support people with end of life care needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

The service was well led.

People and their relatives were happy with the service. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive.

The registered manager had a good knowledge about their role and responsibilities. There was a business plan in place to enable steady growth of the service.

The provider had monitoring and auditing systems in place to ensure the safety and quality of the service and to improve the service.