You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

This comprehensive inspection took place on 5 and 6 December 2018 and was announced.

My Homecare Sutton and Surrey is a home care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community.

On the day of our inspection this agency was providing personal care to 11 older people who lived in North Surrey and the London Borough of Sutton. Most people who received a home care service from this agency were also living with various forms of dementia.

One person the agency supported did not receive a regulated activity from them. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, which includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

The service has had the same registered manager in post since they registered with us 12 months ago. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage a service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This provider was newly registered with the CQC in December 2017. This is the first time this new home care agency will have been inspected and rated by us. We have rated the service ‘Good’ overall and for all four out of the five key questions, ‘Is the service safe, effective, caring and responsive?’

However, we have rated them as ‘requires improvement’ for well-led. This was because we identified a number of issues about this key question. Specifically, we found the provider had not maintained sufficiently detailed and easily accessible records in relation to people using the service, persons employed and the overall management of the home care agency. We have recommended that the provider considers ways to improve how they maintain and organise records they are required to keep.

This issue notwithstanding, we found there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any serious risks or concerns about My Homecare Sutton and Surrey. For example, although some aspects of the service were not well-led, the monitoring of service provision was effective because repeated shortfalls were identified and resolved. There was also an open and transparent culture. People the provider supported, their relatives and staff were complimentary about the leadership approach of the registered manager. People, their relatives and staff were asked to share their feedback about the service action was taken in response.

People the provider supported, their relatives and professional representatives were all extremely complimentary about the standard of the service they, their loved ones or clients received from this home care agency.

People received a safe service where they were protected from avoidable harm, discrimination and abuse. Risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed and planned for and these were monitored for any changes. Staff were usually punctual and never missed their scheduled visits. There were safe staff recruitment procedures in place and used. Where people needed assistance with taking their medicine this was monitored and safely managed in line with best practice guidance. Accidents and incidents were analysed for lessons learnt and these were shared with the staff team to reduce further reoccurrence.

People received an effective home care service. Staff received the training and support they required, including specialist training to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported with their nutritional needs. Staff identified when people required further support with eating and drinking and took appropriate action. The staff worked well with external health care professionals, people were supported with their needs and accessed health services whe

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was safe.

There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people the provider supported from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse.

Risks people might face were identified and managed appropriately. The provider had suitable systems to monitor accidents and incidents and learn from these.

Staff recruitment procedures prevented people from being supported for by unsuitable staff. Staffs scheduled visits were well coordinated and staff were usually punctual.

Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed where the service was responsible for this.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was effective.

Staff had the right mix of knowledge and skills to meet the needs and wishes of people they supported, through effective training and supervision.

Staff routinely sought the consent of the people they supported. Managers and staff were knowledgeable about and adhered to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their dietary needs where staff were responsible for this. People received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access health care services as and when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was caring.

People said staff were kind, caring and respectful.

Staff were thoughtful and considerate when delivering care to people. They ensured people’s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was maintained, particularly when receiving personal care.

People were supported to do as much as they could and wanted to do for themselves to retain control and independence over their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them. People had an up to date, personalised care plan, which set out how staff should meet their care and support needs. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and choices.

People were involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support needs.

The provider had suitable arrangements in place to deal with people's concerns and complaints in an appropriate and timely manner.

When people were nearing the end of their life, they received compassionate and supportive care.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2019

Some aspects of the service were not well-led. Records kept by the service had not always been maintained in such a way as to ensure they were sufficiently detailed and easily accessible. We have recommended that the provider considers ways to improve how they maintain and organise records they are required to keep.

The provider routinely gathered feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. This feedback alongside the provider’s own audits and quality checks was used to continually assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service they provided.

The provider worked in close partnership with external health and social professionals, agencies and bodies.