The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 7B Cromwell Business Centre, New Road, St Ives, Cambridgeshire, PE27 5BG (01480) 495834

Provided and run by:
Lucmont Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile
Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

18 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 18 November 2015 and was announced. This is because we needed to be sure that the registered manager and staff would be available. Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service that is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 90 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were recruited through a robust recruitment process. This helped ensure that only those staff deemed suitable to work with people using the service were offered employment. People were cared for by a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff.

Safe medicines administration practice was adhered to. This was by staff who had been trained and had had their competency to do this regularly assessed. Audits and checks of staff’s medicines administration helped ensure that the provider’s policy for this was consistently applied.

Staff had been trained and were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and how people were protected from harm. Staff knew who they could report any concerns to including the registered manager, the local safe guarding authority or the Care Quality Commission.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about the situations where an assessment of people’s mental capacity could be required.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. Applications had been made to the Court of Protection and the provider was complying with the Court Order.

Staff supported people with their care needs in a way that respected their privacy, dignity and independence. Risk assessments were in place for subjects such as people at risk of falls and self medicating. Checks were completed to help ensure that people’s homes were a safe place for staff to work in.

People were involved in determining their care needs. This formed part of a formal assessment process to help ensure that people received the care they wanted.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals including their GP, community nurse or occupational therapist.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient quantities of the foods and drinks they preferred. People could choose to be as independent as they wanted with their eating and drinking.

Staff received regular support, mentoring and training for their roles. This was through an effective programme of planned supervision and appraisals.

People were provided with information, guidance and support on how to report any concerns, compliments or suggestions for improvement The provider took appropriate action to ensure any complaints were addressed to the complainant’s satisfaction.

The registered manager and senior care staff had effective audit and quality assurance processes and procedures in place. Any actions required to improve the overall standard and quality of care were raised at staff meetings and formal supervision.

19 June 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection team was made up of one inspector. As part of this inspection we spoke with the manager, six staff, three people who used the service and four relatives. We looked at five people's care records together with training and supervision records for five staff. We also reviewed the provider's arrangements to safeguard people from abuse and to monitor the quality of the service provided. Below is a summary of what we found.

If you wish to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and we found that they were appropriately trained. People told us they felt safe and we saw that procedures were in place that protected people from abuse. One person said, 'I feel very safe.'

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which protect people who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

Is the service effective?

We observed good relationships between staff and people who used the service. Staff we spoke with demonstrated that they worked flexibly to meet people's individual needs. One person commented, 'The service is extremely helpful.'

Care records we checked were regularly reviewed and up to date. One relative commented, 'I am involved in everything. We had a review meeting today.'

Is the service caring?

People were supported by staff who were kind and respectful. One person told us, 'I am so lucky to have the service." A relative commented, 'The staff are very kind.'

Care records contained information about people's preferences and it was clear that people had been involved in planning their care. One relative told us, 'I can't speak highly enough about Home Instead.'

Is the service responsive?

People and their relatives told us the service was good. One relative told us, 'We have no complaints. The service is very well organised." Another said, 'I can raise concerns with the team.'

We reviewed a recent complaint and found that it had been investigated and resolved in line with the complaints procedure.

Is the service well led?

The provider had systems in place that ensured there was regular contact with people who used the service. Feedback from a recent questionnaire showed that levels of satisfaction with the service were high.

Staff demonstrated that they understood the ethos of the provider and approach taken to quality assurance; this ensured that people received good quality care.

16 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We received many positive comments about Home Instead Senior Care from the people that used its services. People appreciated the reliability of the service and the consistency of the staff. One person old us, 'They are amazingly punctual and have never missed a visit'. People were also impressed by the quality of the staff, and their caring and considerate attitude. One family member told us, 'Dad has one specific carer who is always reliable, efficient and just very very nice'. It was clear that people had built up a good relationship with the staff that supported them. One person told us, 'I'm so fond of one of my carers; she's an older lady but has old fashioned common sense, that's so rare these days'.

One community psychiatric nurse reported, 'My patients have been very impressed by them, the continuity of their staff and the precise time keeping. I find the staff think outside the box and come up with innovative ways to keep people with dementia simulated and active'. A sheltered housing scheme manager commented, 'I find the office staff very helpful and it's clear they have good dialogue with people's families. I have never heard a bad word against them from any of my residents'.

Staff we spoke with clearly enjoyed their job and told us they felt well supported in their work.

We found that the provider was compliant in all outcome areas we assessed. It was quite evident from all the people we spoke with (people who used the service, their relatives, care professionals and the provider's own staff) that this was a well managed, reliable and high quality service.