Archived: AC Homecare

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they felt safe with the care workers who provided care and support for them. They told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Comments included, 'They are always very polite and helpful' and 'They are brilliant.'

Safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they cared for. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints and whistleblowing investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The service had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are put into place to ensure that people's human rights are protected should their liberty be restricted in any way. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and knew how to submit one.

Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The service had robust recruitment processes in place and undertook full employment checks when recruiting new care workers. This meant the service had taken all reasonable steps to ensure people were protected from risk of harm and suitable staff were employed appropriately to work with vulnerable people.

Is the service effective?

This service was found to be effective because we saw that people were supported in a way that suited their personal needs and maintained their quality of life. People and their relatives told us they had been included in all decisions relating to the care they had received. It was clear from our observations, and from speaking with people and care workers, that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and they knew them well.

People's health and care needs were assessed and their care plans and assessments were reviewed monthly. This showed people were having care delivered effectively in accordance with their assessed needs.

Is the service caring?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they were supported by kind, polite and attentive staff. People we spoke with told us, 'In one word I would describe the care staff as absolutely excellent.'

People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed a yearly satisfaction survey. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to raise a concern or complain if they were unhappy.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a joined up way.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. We were therefore assured that the provider had taken steps to continually improve the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the ethos of the service.

We found that staff understood the particular needs of the people they were supporting and that care was delivered according to those needs. One person said, 'I am very happy with [name of care staff member]. They always know what I want help with and I am very lucky to have them.' The relative of one person told us, 'It's very consistent. My relative gets the same people all the time so they always know what [the person] wants.'

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the care staff understood the provider's safeguarding policy and could identify and respond to concerns about potential abuse.

Staff members were supported to carry out their role by means of a comprehensive workplace training programme and an on-going supervision and appraisal system. Staff were also enabled to obtain further qualifications relevant to their role.

We found that the provider effectively monitored the quality of service through the use of feedback from people using the service and by carrying out spot checks of staff members' work.

Care plans and risk assessments were not completed adequately and contained limited information about the risks to people or their support needs. This meant that staff members relied upon their own personal knowledge of people's needs when delivering care.