You are here

SureCare Richmond and Kingston Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

This inspection took place on 22 January and was announced. This is the first inspection for this service which was registered in 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 adults of all ages and abilities. Everyone using SureCare received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. 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.

The provider who is part of a larger franchise was registered in February 2018 and had been delivering services to people since June 2018. During that time they had established good practices and procedures which would help as the service expanded.

People were safe in their homes. Staff could explain to us how to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. People had suitable risk assessments in place. The provider managed risks associated with people's homes, to help keep people and staff safe. Recruitment practices were safe. Staff were trained in medicine administration and the checks we made confirmed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by staff qualified to administer medicines.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and support. Staff had the skills, experience and a good understanding of how to meet people's needs.

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 had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

When required people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. When required staff worked with people's GP and other healthcare professional to ensure they stayed well and comfortable.

People and relatives told us staff were polite, friendly and very nice and staff respected their privacy and treated them with dignity. People's needs were assessed before they started to use the service and care was planned and delivered in response to their needs. The provider had arrangements in place to respond appropriately to people's concerns and complaints.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. The provider had effective quality assurance systems to monitor the scheme's processes. These systems helped ensure people received the care they needed as detailed in their support plans.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was safe.

Staff were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and the action they needed to take.

People had individual risk assessments and where risks had been identified risk management plans were in place.

The recruitment practices ensured staff employed by the provider were suitable for their roles.

The provider had systems in place to protect people against risks associated with the management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was effective.

Staff received regular training and support to keep them updated with best practice.

The registered manager was aware of what was required if people were not able to give consent and of their duties under the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Peoples nutritional and hydration needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was caring.

Staff told us how they ensured people's rights to privacy and dignity were maintained while supporting them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was responsive.

The support plans outlining people's care and support needs were detailed so that peoples' individual support needs were identified.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure, so that people knew what to do if they had a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 February 2019

The service was well-led.

The provider had effective quality monitoring systems in place.

The registered manager had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities with regard to the requirements for submission of notifications of relevant events and changes to CQC.

The provider gathered the views of people and relatives to help improve the quality of the service.