We carried out a review of the data available to us about H.G. Care Services Limited-Rochdale Office on 6 July 2023. 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 H.G. Care Services Limited-Rochdale Office, you can give feedback on this service.
H.G. Care Services Limited-Rochdale Office is a domiciliary service providing support and personal care for people in the Rochdale area.
This service is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, and younger disabled adults.
Not everyone using H. G. Care Services Limited – Rochdale Office receives 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.
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. On the day of the inspection the registered manager was unavailable. The inspection was facilitated by the branch manager.
The service had appropriate safeguarding and whistle blowing policies. Staff had undertaken training and were confident on how to recognise and report any concerns.
The staff recruitment procedure was robust and there were sufficient staff employed to ensure people’s needs were met. Calls were monitored to help ensure the safety of both staff and people who used the service.
General and individual risk assessments were in place and kept up to date. All appropriate health and safety measures were implemented by the service. Accidents and incidents were logged, along with actions taken to minimise any further risk.
Medicines systems were safe and staff had received training in medicines administration. Medicines audits and staff competence checks were undertaken regularly. Appropriate infection control measures were in place
Care files included a thorough assessment and appropriate health and personal information.
Staff induction was thorough and there was on-going training and development for staff at the service. Staff supervisions were held regularly.
People’s nutritional and hydration needs were recorded within their care plans. Any dietary needs were documented and fluid balance charts put in place when required.
The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
People we spoke with felt the service was good and staff were kind and caring. Dignity and privacy was respected and staff had regard to equality and diversity when supporting people. Confidentiality and data protection were taken seriously.
People were fully involved with setting up their care and support. There was a service user guide for people who used the service.
People told us the service responded to their needs and documentation was person-centred. The service worked within the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring information was available in a number of formats.
Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and relevant people included in the review process. The complaints policy was appropriate and up to date. Complaints were logged and responded to appropriately.
The service had a policy and procedure for end of life care to be implemented in the event of someone nearing the end of their life whilst receiving support from them.
The service had an appropriate statement of purpose in place and there was a business continuity plan.
Staff and people who used the service felt well supported by the management and regular satisfaction surveys were sent out for staff and people who used the service to provide feedback.
There were a number of audits and checks in place to aid continual service improvement. The service worked in partnership with other agencies as required.
The service had notified CQC of any accidents, serious incidents, and safeguarding allegations as they are required to do. The provider had not been inspected prior to this inspection, so as yet had not displayed a CQC rating.