You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 4 November 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about GPM Care Services on 4 November 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about GPM Care Services, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 31 October 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

GPM Care Services is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people living in their own homes. This includes support with personal care tasks, mobility, nutrition and other activities. The service also provides 'live-in' support for people who require a 24-hour service.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive support with personal care tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 24 people were receiving support with personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received a reliable service from staff who were kind and caring. People and their relatives told us they felt safe and trusted the staff providing care and support.

Care plans were person-centred and comprehensive. People’s care needs were reviewed on a regular basis and care plans updated to reflect any changes to the support people required.

Staff were trained and supported in their role and had a good understanding of the needs and preferences of the people they were supporting.

Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were assessed and planned for and people's complex care needs were appropriately met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The provider’s policies and procedures promoted peoples' rights to dignity, independence and privacy.

Staff supported people to take their medicines safely where this formed part of an agreed package of care.

The provider met people's nutritional needs. Staff completed training in food hygiene and supported people to eat and drink according to their needs and preferences.

The service worked in partnership with other professionals to optimise people’s health and well-being.

The provider had appropriate safeguarding, whistleblowing and complaints procedures in place. People and their relatives told us they would feel comfortable raising a concern or making a complaint.

Safe recruitment processes were being followed to ensure staff were suitable for their roles.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to identify shortfalls and where needed, improve the quality of the service delivered.

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

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was good (report published 16 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was part of a scheduled plan based on our last rating of the service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 31 March 2017

During a routine inspection

We conducted an inspection of Home Instead on 31 March 2017. Home Instead provides care and support to people living in their own homes. There were 30 people using the service when we visited. At our previous inspection on 11 August 2014 we rated this service “good”. At this inspection we found that the service remained “good”.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Staff had completed medicines administration training within the last two years and were clear about their responsibilities.

Risk assessments and care plans contained clear information for staff. Records were reviewed every three months or where the person’s care needs had changed.

Staff demonstrated knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Care records documented that consent to care had been obtained and records were signed by people using the service or their legal representative.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s life histories and current circumstances and supported people to meet their individual needs in a caring way.

People using the service were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. People had personalised care plans in place that reflected their assessed needs.

Recruitment procedures ensured that only staff who were suitable worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them for their role. Staff were provided with appropriate training to help them carry out their duties. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals of their performance and these were documented. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to maintain a balanced, nutritious diet. People were supported effectively with their health needs and were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals as required.

People using the service and staff felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was a complaints policy and procedure in place.

The organisation had adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. This included monthly monitoring of medicines administration charts (MAR) and daily care notes. We saw evidence that feedback was obtained by people using the service and the results of this was positive.

Inspection carried out on 11 August 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 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 Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The service provides care and support to people living in their own homes. Home Instead is a care service with numerous offices operating throughout the UK. We visited the Kensington and Chelsea branch of Home Instead, which is located in Fulham but provides care and support to people living in and around Kensington and Chelsea. At the time of our inspection, five older people were receiving support with personal care from the service.

There was 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.

Staff had a good understanding of how to identify abuse, and knew how to respond appropriately to any concerns to keep people safe. Staff were meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that only people who were deemed suitable worked within the service. There was an induction programme for new staff which prepared them for their role. Staff were provided with a range of training to help them to carry out their roles effectively. They had regular supervision meetings with their manager and annual appraisals to support them to meet people’s needs. There were enough staff employed by the service to meet people’s needs.

People had care plans in place which reflected their assessed needs. People were supported effectively with their health needs and were involved in making decisions about what kind of support they wanted.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and cared for them according to their individual needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences and we received positive feedback from relatives about the service provided by care workers.

People using the service, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was an effective complaints management system in place.

The service carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. Where issues were identified action plans were put in place to rectify these.

Inspection carried out on 4 April 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the inspection there were two people using the service. We spoke with one person who used the service and looked at recently completed feedback forms. These indicated that people were satisfied with the care they had received from Home Instead. We were told that people were introduced to two carers when they started using the service to provide continuity of care if one was absent.

People were given written information on what to expect from the service. They were also assessed by a care manager from Home Instead to ensure that the service could meet their needs safely. This initial assessment gave people the opportunity to ask questions and to tell Home Instead their preferences. People felt they were involved in planning their care and that they were treated with dignity and respect. One person had written, "thank you for supporting us through what could have been a really stressful time".

People were cared for by staff who had been through a recruitment process, which included carrying out the necessary checks before they could start work. Staff were also required to complete an induction training programme, which included basic life support and how to respond to any safeguarding concerns.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. The care manager conducted monthly spot checks and obtained feedback regularly. People who use the service told us they felt able to raise a complaint if they had one.