You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

This inspection was announced and took place on 19, 20 and 22 February 2018.

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 and younger disabled adults.

The agency had a registered manager who was also the registered manager who was present on the day of our inspection visit. 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.

At our previous inspection in September 2016, staff lacked understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act [MCA] 2005. At this inspection staff demonstrated a good understanding of MCA and had incorporated this in their care practices to ensure people’s human rights were protected.

At the previous inspection we found that the provider’s governance was ineffective to ensure the monitoring of medicine practices. At this inspection improvements had been made to ensure medicine practices were monitored and staff had the appropriate skills to assist people with their prescribed treatment.

People informed us about complaints they had shared with the provider. However, these complaints had not been recorded to show what action had been taken to resolve them or to monitor complaints for trends.

People told us they felt safe using the service and staff were aware of how to safeguard them from the risk of potential abuse. Risk to people was managed effectively to reduce the risk of harm to them. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. Staff had been provided with training about how to reduce the risk of cross infection and they had access to essential personal protective equipment. The registered manager said no one in their care had sustained any accidents or near misses. However, systems were in place to record and monitor these if and when they occurred.

People’s consent was obtained before care and support was provided and they were assisted to access relevant healthcare services when needed. Staff assisted people to prepare their meals and took the relevant action where people did not eat and drink sufficient amounts to promote their health. People were cared for by skilled staff who were supported in their role to provide an effective service.

People told us staff were kind, friendly and were aware of how to care for them. People’s involvement in their care planning ensured their specific needs were met and staff respected their right to privacy and dignity.

The assessment of people’s needs with the involvement of other healthcare professionals ensured they were provided with the relevant support and where needed they were also assisted to pursue their interests.

The involvement of other healthcare professionals ensured the provider was able to provide a service specific to the individual’s needs. People were aware of who the registered manager was and found them approachable. People were able to express their views about the service they received. Staff were also given the opportunity to have say about how the service was run. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided to people.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe with the service they received and staff were aware of how to protect them from the risk of potential abuse. Risks to people were managed effectively to ensure their safety. People were cared for by sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. Where necessary people were supported by staff with their prescribed medicines. Staff had access to essential personal protective equipment to assist in reducing the risk of cross infection. Systems were in place to record accidents and near misses if and when they occurred.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service was effective.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure they received the appropriate care and support. People were cared for by skilled staff who were supported in their role by the registered manager. People were assisted to prepare their meals and staff were vigilant to observe that they ate and drank enough to promote their health. Staff worked with other agencies to promote people’s wellbeing and they were assisted to access relevant healthcare services when needed. People’s consent was obtained before they were supported.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service was caring.

People were provided with care by staff who were kind and attentive to their needs. People’s involvement in their care planning ensured they received care and support to meet their preferences. Staff work practices ensured people’s right to privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service was responsive.

The provider was unable to demonstrate that complaints were managed effectively. However, people confirmed their complaints were listened to and acted on. People were supported by staff to pursue their social interests. The involvement of other agencies with the assessments of people’s needs ensured there was a holistic approach in meeting people’s needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 April 2018

The service was well-led.

The provider’s governance was effective to ensure people received the support they required. Systems and practices ensured that people and staff had a say in the running of the agency. People were aware of the registered manager and found them to be friendly and approachable.