Archived: Safe Harbour Homecare Ltd

The service has a registered manager. 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 is also currently the registered manager. A new manager was appointed to run the service in September 2015 and they are in the process of registering with CQC.

People and their relatives provided positive feedback about the service. Their comments included “It’s amazing”, “Brilliant”, “Very pleased with them” and “The standard of care is good.”

People and their relatives told us the service was safe. Staff had undertaken relevant training and understood their role in relation to safeguarding people and the actions they should take to keep people safe from the risk of abuse.

Risks to people had been assessed and measures were in place to manage risks safely for people. Staff had access to written guidance which they followed and understood the risks to individuals.

People received a high degree of continuity in the staff providing their care. If people needed two staff to provide their care safely this was rostered and provided. The manager ensured they did not overcommit the service and did not accept requests for care which they could not meet safely. People were kept safe because the service operated robust recruitment practices.

People received their medicines safely from trained staff. Processes were in place to ensure people’s medicine administration records were audited monthly to identify and address any gaps with staff. Processes were in place to ensure people had sufficient supplies of their medicines.

People told us staff were well trained. Staff underwent an induction when they commenced their role. Staff had the opportunity to update their training and the provider monitored staff training needs and requests to ensure the training they provided supported staff effectively in their role. Staff received regular supervision and spot checks on the quality of their work with people.

Staff had undertaken relevant training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood their role in seeking people’s consent. Staff had not needed to complete any MCA 2005 assessments to date but understood who might lack the capacity in the future to continue to provide their consent to the provision of their care.

People were happy with the quality of the meals staff prepared for them. A person told us “It is a good lunch, but then it always is.” Staff understood and met people’s dietary needs and preferences when providing their care in relation to food and drink.

Staff were observant to any changes in people that might necessitate a referral to a health care professional and alerted the office to any concerns they had about people’s health. The service worked with a range of health care professionals to ensure people’s health care needs were met.

People and their relatives made positive comments about how staff ensured they developed positive and caring relationships with people. A person told us “It’s heaven to know the girls are coming they are lovely.” A person’s relative told us “The carers are quite jolly and he responds to them well.” Staff were provided with information about people’s backgrounds and interests. They used this information to engage people in conversation and were genuinely interested in them as individuals.

People their relatives and professionals told us the way care was provided reflected people’s preferences. Staff understood the need to enable people to make choices in their daily lives as far as they were able and were active in enabling people to make choices. Staff understood people’s different communication needs and ensured they followed the guidance provided in people’s care plans to enable them to communicate their views.

People and their relatives told us all personal care was provided to people in a private and dignified manner. Staff understood the need to uphold people’s privacy and dignity when providing their care and ensured this was done.

People and their relatives told us the service was responsive to their needs and that staff understood their care needs. A person commented “I would be in a home if it wasn’t for the girls.” People’s needs had been assessed with them prior to the provision of their care in order to identify what they needed and how they wanted their care to be provided.

People’s independence was respected and promoted. Staff had supported people both through the provision of a six week re-enablement programme and through their care planning to retain or regain their independence. People were also supported to attend activities they enjoyed within the community either by staff taking them or by their calls being arranged to facilitate their attendance.

People told us they felt able to raise any issues or complaints with staff and that they would be listened to and appropriate action taken in response. Records demonstrated that when any complaints had been received, the manager had investigated them, in accordance with the provider’s policy and responded to the complainant with the actions taken. The service was responsive to people’s feedback.

The provider had a mission statement and a set of values which outlined their expectations of how staff should work with people. Staff were observed to treat people with care and dignity throughout the inspection. They supported people to remain independent and to make choices about their care. People received care from staff who demonstrated the provider’s values in their work with them.

People we spoke to were complimentary about the management of the service. There was a clearly defined management structure in place and the provider had good oversight of the service.

The manager had identified areas of the service that could be improved in relation to staff records and had made the required improvements to ensure they contained all of the relevant information. They had also ensured that people’s medicine records were reviewed monthly in order to identify any issues for people. A customer survey had been circulated and the manager had met with people as a result to identify if there were any ways they could improve the service people experienced.

Staff training records showed that training in safeguarding of vulnerable adults was included in staff induction and it was updated annually. This meant that staff were given opportunities to review their knowledge and practices. One care worker we spoke with said: "I would have no hesitation at all in reporting any concerns I had to my manager".

Effective recruitment and induction processes were in place. Interviews were conducted by the registered manager and a standard set of questions was used. This was followed by a five day induction process, and a period of working with an experienced member of staff for seven days or until that person was confident to work alone.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. A system had been established to consult people about the quality of service received from the agency in their own homes and this was carried out at regular intervals through reviews of care. People told us they felt able to talk to the care workers and say what they wanted.

We saw that risk assessments had been completed and care plans contained detailed information of people's needs. The daily records contained details of care and support given with personal care.