You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was last inspected on the 14 January 2016 where we identified concerns with how information was shared with staff about people’s needs and how the service monitored the visits that staff made to people’s homes. Soon after the inspection the provider confirmed that they had introduced a digital care management tool that staff would log into to state that they had arrived, logged that they had provided all of the care and then log back out when they had finished all of the care. Confidential information about people’s needs was able to be shared using this system.

This inspection was carried out on the 12 May 2017. Haslemere Homecare provides personal care and support for people in their own homes. This includes people that are old and frail, some of whom have disabilities. At the time of our inspection the service provided personal care to approximately 120 people. Other people who used the service were not receiving personal care.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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. We were supported on the inspection by the registered manager and the deputy manager.

People were able to build caring and friendly relationships with the management team and the staff who supported them. People and relatives felt that staff and management went above and beyond their duties to care for people and their families in a compassionate way. One relative said “It’s a lifeline to me. My rapport with (the member of staff) is fantastic. I would be lost without (the carer). They go above and beyond. She (the carer) is very caring, competent and motivated. Do anything for anybody”

The manager and staff went out of their way to ensure that people and their relatives were comforted and looked after in a kind and compassionate manner and treated with dignity and respect. It was clear that staff understood people's needs and how to communicate with people. People and relatives were involved in the decisions about their care.

People told us they felt safe with staff. Relatives felt that their family members were safe with staff. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any allegations would be taken seriously and investigated to help ensure people were protected. There were sufficient staff at the service to provide care and support to people. Appropriate recruitment checks were undertaken before staff started work.

Staff understood the risks to people and ensured that people were kept safe. Staff encouraged and supported people to lead their lives as independently as possible whilst ensuring they were kept safe. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. People were supported to manage their own medicines.

People received support from staff that knew them well, and who had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. Training was provided to staff that was specific to the needs of people. People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and the support provided. Staff received supervision to provide effective care to people.

People had detailed care plans in place which provided guidance for staff about how people liked their care provided. People told us staff always respected the way they liked things done

and respected their home.

Staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. No-one receiving support was assessed as lacking capacity to make day to day decisions. Staff knew what to do however if this situation arose.

Staff supported people with their nutrition

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was safe.

People told us that they felt safe in their own homes and relatives were confident that people were safe with staff.

Staff received training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding people.

Robust recruitment practices took place before new staff started work.

People were supported with their medicines where appropriate.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and actions taken to reduce the risks.

Risk assessments had been completed that were clear and provided

staff with the necessary information to help people remain safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to do their job well.

Staff received appropriate training specific to the needs of people. Staff had appropriate supervisions to support them in their role.

Staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and its principles. This was demonstrated in how people were supported.

People were supported with their healthcare needs, in interacting with medical professionals and in managing appointments. People were supported to eat and drink healthily. Where people were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration this was monitored by staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was exceptionally caring.

Staff went the extra mile to ensure that people and their families were treated with kindness and compassion.

People felt that staff always treated them with dignity and respect and we saw that this was the case.

People were able to express their opinions about the service and were involved in the decisions about their care.

Care was centred on people's individual needs. Staff maintained kind and caring relationships with people and their families.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People's needs were assessed when they entered the service and regularly thereafter. Information regarding people's care and support was reviewed regularly and staff were kept up to date of any changes.

People knew how to make a complaint and who to complain to.

We saw that complaints were responded to in an appropriate way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was well- led.

People and families were helped and supported to raise funds for charities that were important to them.

There were appropriate systems in place that monitored the safety and quality of the service.

Where people's views were gained these were used to improve the quality of the service.

People and staff thought the manager was supportive and they could go to them with any concerns.

The culture of the service was supportive and staff felt valued and included.