Archived: The Hospital of God Care Services

The Hospital of God Care Services is a domiciliary care agency, registered to provide personal care to support people to continue living in their own homes through pursuing hobbies, playing board games, carrying out arts and crafts, listening to music and preparing snacks. The service supports people to access activities in the community including going shopping, attending leisure facilities, the cinema, museums, tea dances, going out for lunch or to the seaside. The service also provides respite for carers and their families.

The Hospital of God Care Services was last inspected by CQC on 30 July 2014 and was meeting the regulations inspected. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 16 people.

People who used the service were complimentary about the standard of care and support provided by The Hospital of God Care Services. People told us, “I am really happy with the service” and “The staff are very helpful and supportive”.

The service had a registered manager. 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. There was also a community services manager and a senior support worker appointed by the registered provider to manage the day to day operation of the service.

The registered manager was accessible and approachable. Staff and people who used the service felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. The registered manager undertook regular spot checks to review the quality of the service provided.

The registered provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to health, safety and welfare. People were kept safe and free from harm.

The registered provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service. Staff were able to accommodate last minute changes to appointments as requested by the people who used the service.

Staff were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities and training was up to date. Staff had the experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff received supervision and appraisal which meant that staff were properly supported to provide care to people who used the service.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. Care plans were written in a person centred way. ‘Person-centred ‘is about ensuring the person is at the centre of everything and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account. The care plans made good use of personal history and described individuals care, wellbeing and support needs. These were reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Staff supported people to help them maintain their independence. People were encouraged to care for themselves where possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The service had policies and procedures in place that provided staff with clear instructions.

Records were kept securely and could be located when needed.

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service caring?

In discussions with staff, they could tell us about people's individual needs and preferences and were respectful of their diverse needs. A relative told us, "The staff are very understanding and knowledgeable of my relative's needs, nothing is a trouble and they also think about the person's carer and the difficulties they can face."

Another relative told us 'My relative gets on very well with the staff.'

Is the service responsive?

Each person's care plan contained an action plan of what the purpose of care was to achieve. One person's plan was to be able to socialise and have company in their own home as they did not like to socialise with large groups of people.

The service tailored each person's activities to suit the individual person to keep them active and involved in the community. One person told us they went to the gym with staff when they cared for them and they 'Really enjoyed it', they also explained how they went to a caf' for a drink and a snack after their visit to the gym.

People's carers told us they could approach the manager of the service at any time if they wanted to discuss anything and felt they were listened to.

Is the service safe?

One relative told us 'I do not worry when my relative is out with the staff, they speak to them nicely and look after them well.'

Each person's care plan had risk assessments to minimise the risks of people going out into the community, such as them travelling in a car. There was also a safety checklist for staff to read and consider regarding the person's home, for example the risks of pets, access to property and moving and handling.

Is the service effective?

People all had individual care plans which set out their care needs. The manager explained to us there was staff stability and continuity which enabled them to know each person's needs." Relatives felt the service met people's individual needs. One person told us, "They are really on the ball."

We found that people of varying needs and conditions were well cared for and that their care was being delivered in line with their needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager. Relatives told us they had confidence in the current management and that they were very approachable.

The provider had a system to assure the quality of service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed. A range of checks were carried out including care records, staff training and medication audits.