Archived: Elimay Homecare

Elimay Homecare is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, the service was providing personal care to 10 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found.

People were happy with the service they received which they described as reliable, dependable and met their individual needs. They told us they felt safe in the company of the staff who knew them well and were kind and friendly.

There were enough staff safely recruited to cover the planned visits to people. People told us a regular team of staff including the registered manager provided their care and they were punctual, stayed the allocated time and they had never had a missed visit. Records seen confirmed this.

Staff understood how to protect and safeguard people. Risks to people were assessed and mitigated, which reduced the risk of harm.

Where people required support with their medicines, this was done safely. Infection control processes protected people from the risks of cross infection.

People received care and support from staff who were trained and supported appropriately. Where people required support with their dietary needs and health, this was provided effectively.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Systems to monitor the quality and safety of service were in place. People were asked for their views and their feedback used to improve the service and make any necessary changes.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 30 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There were systems in place which provided guidance for care workers on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. There were processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included risk assessments which identified how the risks to people were minimised. There were systems in place to check that care workers were suitable to work in this type of service.

Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

Care workers were available to ensure that planned visits to people were completed. People were supported by care workers who were trained, supported and supervised to meet their needs. Care workers had good relationships with people who used the service.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely. Where required, people were provided support to access health care professionals.

The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve. A complaints procedure was in place.

Our last inspection of 25 April 2014 the service was meeting the requirements to provide good quality care to people. At this inspection we found that these standards had been maintained. This inspection of 2 May 2017 was the first ratings inspection for this service.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. One person told us about the staff who support them, "They always treat me with respect." This person also told us that they felt safe.

Systems were in place to make sure that staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Risk assessments had been undertaken and safe systems of work developed. This reduced risks to people who used the service and staff.

Staff had received appropriate professional development and were able to obtain further relevant qualifications. Staff wore uniforms and carried identification badges. This meant people's safety was maintained.

Procedures were in place for the management and administration of medicine. Care records identified the level of support people received with medication. Staff who supported people with their medication needs had received training in medication. This ensured that people were kept safe and their needs were met.

Staff were able to explain how they would support people in an emergency and they had received training in how to support people safely.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in people's care plans where required. We looked at the care records that were present in the person's home that we visited. These documents were handed to us by the relative of the person. The person who used the service was also aware of the care documents in their home. The person's relative had signed the care plan and they were involved in their relatives care.

The service had a policy for The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). However, the registered manager told us that they were in the process of arranging training for staff on the MCA. We saw that, where required, the service had completed a mental capacity assessment for one person who used the service. The registered manager had a good understanding on the MCA and was working closely with care staff to support people and provide advice on MCA if required.

People's needs were taken into account during their visits. People's daily records showed their involvement and choices offered during their visits. One person's relative told us that the care team was, "Fantastic." Another person's relative sent a complimentary email to the service which stated, 'We are so happy with your care team.'

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. One person's relative said, 'The best agency you will get by a mile. Absolutely unbelievable.' We asked one person who used the service if they had any concerns, they told us, "If there is any, I don't know of them."

People we spoke with confirmed that the registered manager visited them regularly to ensure that the service was satisfactory. One person stated in an email to the service, 'Elimay services are fantastic and I am so pleased to have them on board. They are kind and caring and so good at understanding dementia care.'

People's preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw records that showed the service responded quickly to people's changing needs. People were able to express their views and these were acted on. They were supported to maintain their independence in their homes.

People told us that they had no complaints and were happy with the care they received.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff felt supported in their roles through training, staff meetings and supervision. Staff felt their views were listened to.

The service had a quality assurance system. The registered manager worked alongside the care team to ensure that people received a safe quality service. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

The service had a good induction program to ensure that staff were well trained and ready to work with people on their own. The service had a quality assurance checklist in place in people's homes to ensure that documentation was completed accurately and checked daily. This meant that people could be assured that the service continually monitored the quality of the service.