You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 August 2019

About the service

Numada Homecare is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. The service was supporting 29 people at the time of the inspection. The service provided short term reablement support, usually up to six weeks, with the aim of supporting people to regain their independence and assess any ongoing support needs. The service had a single point of referral from the local authority reablement service, the Community Response Team (CRT) we have referred to the CRT in this report.

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

People and their relatives told us the service provided safe care. Staff were aware of people’s risks which were assessed with plans developed to mitigate these. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and staff and people told us there was enough time during calls to meet people’s needs without rushing. Staff were recruited safely and knew how to safeguard people from abuse.

People were protected from the risk of infection and staff were checked to ensure they used the appropriate equipment to promote safe and hygienic care. Medicines were mostly managed safely but information about ‘as required’ medicines was missing from the records. This information supports the safe management of people’s medicines. We have made a recommendation about this. Information from incidents at the service was used to make improvements and prevent a reoccurrence.

People’s needs were assessed by the CRT prior to the person using the service and the provider added to this information during their initial visits and as people’s needs changed. People were asked about their protected characteristics to inform people’s needs and support non-discriminatory practice. 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. Staff completed training to meet people’s needs and this was monitored for completion. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met where applicable. People were supported to access a range of healthcare and other services to meet their needs with a focus on enabling people to regain and maintain their independence.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Staff knew how to provide respectful care that promoted people’s dignity and privacy. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and their consent was sought by staff.

The provider occasionally supported people at the end of life and told us they relied on the CRT for a care plan in these circumstances. The provider’s policy did not detail all the information that may be required to care for someone appropriately at the end of their life, so they could check people’s needs had been fully explored. We have made a recommendation about this. People told us their needs were met by the service and they were supported to achieve positive outcomes. Complaints about the service were investigated, responded to and used to identify trends and improve practice. People were asked about their communication needs and the service was able to provide information in appropriate formats to meet these.

An effective system was in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager used information from incidents and audits to achieve continuous improvements. Staff spoke positively about the culture and management of the service and people told us they were ‘happy’ with the service they received. Feedback from people was sought but the registered manager was working on making the current system more meaningful to service development. Staff were asked to give feedback but the analysis of this could be improved to show learning and actions taken as a result. We have made a recommendation about this. The service worked in partnership with other agencies to prom

Inspection areas



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 28 August 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.