You are here

Hillingdon and Uxbridge Homecare Ltd Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Hillingdon and Uxbridge Homecare Ltd. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

This inspection took place on 26 June 2017 and was announced. At the last inspection on 8 and 9 June 2015 we found the service was rated ‘Good’ in all key questions and overall. At this inspection, we found the service remained rated ‘Good’ overall.

Right at Home (Hillingdon and Uxbridge) is a domiciliary care agency providing a range of services including personal care for people in their own homes. The people using the service were either privately funding their own care or used direct payments.

At the time of our inspection, the agency provided approximately 600 hours of support on a weekly basis to 19 people.

The agency had ensured staff attended all scheduled calls, however, at times staff arrived later than agreed. The agency was working towards addressing this matter through recruitment of new staff members and modifying current rotas in order to extend travel time between calls and to ensure all visits took place on time and as agreed.

The management team appropriately dealt with all safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and complaints raised by the people using the service and their relatives. By doing so, they ensured the concerns were fully investigated and actions were taken to prevent such situations from happening in the future.

The agency had assessed risks to the health and wellbeing of people who used the service and staff had clear guidelines on how to support people safely.

The provider had an appropriate recruitment procedure in place which they implemented to ensure only suitable staff were appointed to work with people who used the service.

The provider had arrangements to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way and people received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received regular training and support so they developed the skills and knowledge they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively.

The agency was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and care had been planned in the best interests of people who used the service. Staff asked people’s consent before providing care and support.

People's health and wellbeing was monitored on a daily basis and staff alerted the agency and other professionals if someone's health needs changed.

People told us that the staff really cared for them and they treated them with care and respect at all times. Staff spoke with compassion and warmth about people they cared for. The service delivered sensitive and caring support to people.

The service had a strong and visible person-centred culture to ensure that people felt they were valued and they mattered. Staff continuously empowered people to enable them to live better and comfortable lives.

People received person centred care that reflected their care needs and individual preferences. People told us their care and support had been discussed with them and they took part in the planning and reviewing of their care.

The provider had a complaints policy and people and their relatives were satisfied with how the agency had dealt with any concerns they had raised. The provider had asked people about their feedback on care and support provided by the agency to identify any areas that might need to be improved.

They management team promoted an open door policy where they encouraged staff to have their say about any issues and difficulties they might have in relation to their professional role and responsibilities.

Staff thought the agency was well-led and they praised the support they received from both the provider and the registered manage.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and there was on-going and effective communication between the staff and the managers.

The provider had a variety of effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provision.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was safe.

The agency was working towards making sure all scheduled calls took place on time and as agreed.

The agency had procedures regarding safeguarding adults and the staff were aware of these.

The agency had assessed risks to the health and wellbeing of people who used the service and staff had guidelines on how to support people safely.

The agency had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure only suitable staff were appointed to work with people who used the service.

The provider had arrangements to ensure people received their medicines in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate induction and training and were able to meet people�s needs effectively.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal of their work to ensure the best possible support was provided for people they cared for.

The agency was working within the principles of the MCA and care had been planned in the best interests of people who used the service.

Staff supported people in maintaining good health and in having access to healthcare professionals when required.

Caring

Outstanding

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was exceptionally caring.

People told us that the staff really care for them and they treated them with care and respect at all times. The agency regularly went above and beyond the agreed care package to deliver sensitive and caring support to people.

The service had a strong, visible person-centred culture and went the extra mile to ensure that people felt they were valued and they mattered.

Staff continuously empowered people to enable them to live better and comfortable lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People received person centred care that reflected their care needs and individual preferences.

People�s care was regularly reviewed and people and their relatives were involved in the review process.

The agency had a complaints procedure in place and dealt with complaints in a timely manner.

The provider had regularly asked people about their feedback on the care and support provided by the agency to identify any areas that might need to be improved.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was well led.

They management team promoted an open door policy and staff were encouraged to discuss any matters related to their professional role and responsibilities.

Staff were pleased with the support they received from both the provider and the registered manage.

Staff worked well as a team and there was on-going and effective communication between the staff and the managers.

The provider had a variety of effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provision.