You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The inspection took place on 21, 23 and 27 November 2018. The inspection was announced in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. This is the first time this service has been inspected since they registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in November 2017.

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 older adults, younger disabled adults and children.

The CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection nine people were receiving personal care.

The service was managed by the registered manager. 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 were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people's needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed. Infection prevention and control procedures were in place and staff followed these.

Staffing levels were maintained to ensure that people's care and support needs continued to be met safely and there were safe recruitment processes in place.

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. People’s needs and choices were assessed and mental capacity assessments were undertaken.

Staff displayed empathy and worked with people and their relatives to understand how best to support them. Everyone we spoke with, without exception, said they were very happy with the service being provided. Staff were kind, considerate, respected people and maintained their dignity.

People received individualised, personalised, person centred care that met their needs. People were supported to live fulfilled and meaningful lives.

People were listened to and any complaints received were dealt with following the providers complaints policy and procedure.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and received regular supervision and training. Staff were complimentary about the management team and how they were supported to carry out their work. The management team were also clearly committed to providing a good service for people.

Staff and the registered manager shared the visions and values of the service and these were embedded within service delivery. A system was in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys and meetings. People made their views known through direct discussion with the registered manager and staff, or through the complaint and quality monitoring systems. People's privacy and confidentiality were maintained as records were held securely.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was safe.

Staff were recruited safely. There were enough staff to provide people with safe care and support.

Staff understood how to keep people safe and where risks had been identified, action had been taken to mitigate those risks.

Medicines were managed safely and kept under review.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was effective.

There was a system in place to ensure staff were trained, training needs were identified and staff were suitably supported.

People were supported by staff who had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act and applied its principles in their work.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring. People were respected and had their dignity maintained.

People's individual, diverse needs were respected by staff who understood equality and diversity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People�s care records were comprehensive, up to date and regularly reviewed.

There were arrangements in place to respond and learn from feedback from people, relatives and staff.

A complaints procedure was in place and people told us they felt able to raise any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was well-led.

A registered manager was in place who provided effective leadership and management to drive improvements.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.