We carried out a review of the data available to us about Plan-it Homecare Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Plan-it Homecare Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
The care and support provided to people was person centred. People's care plans and risk assessments included information about their preferred care, support needs, and preferences and this was followed by staff. Staff had received training about safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to respond to and report any allegation or suspicion of harm or abuse. They understood the importance of reporting concerns immediately. The service's recruitment procedures were designed to ensure that staff employed were suitable for the work they would be undertaking.
Staff received regular training and new staff had received an induction to the service before starting work. Staff also received supervision meetings with their manager to support them in carrying out their roles. Spot checks of staff practice and competency had taken place.
People were complimentary of the care they received. People said they trusted the service because of their reliability, consistency, and the caring approach of staff. People and their family members were involved in decisions about people’s care. They told us they had been involved in agreeing people's care plans and had participated in reviews of the care and support provided to people. People and family members said staff asked people for their consent to carry out care and support tasks.
Information about people's religious, cultural and communication needs was included in their care plans to assist staff in supporting people as appropriate. People were supported to have 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.
People had been asked about their views of the care and support that they received, and the provider used this feedback, and a range of quality assurance checks to continually improve the service. People and family members were aware of the service's complaints procedure and knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. T Actions had been taken to address any concerns.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this inspection was Good (published August 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to inspect as part of our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection on 1 September 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection, the service continues to be rated good. Since the last inspection the provider had made a lot of improvements to the service and was working towards a possible ‘outstanding’ rating in the future.
The office visit took place on 24 August 2017 and was announced. We told the provider before the visit we were coming so they could arrange to be there and arrange for staff to be available to talk with us about the service.
A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.
We received some extremely positive feedback from people who used the service, and their relatives, about the staff that visited them. People told us they were very happy with the care they received. They said staff were, excellent, very caring and had made a positive difference to their lives. People said the kindness of staff exceeded their expectations of how they would be cared for and supported. Staff we spoke with were highly motivated to provide a good service to people they supported. Staff told us, with people’s consent, they often provided additional support to some people they visited, in their own time.
People received care which protected them from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff had completed training in safeguarding people and knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and assessments were in place to manage identified risks. Staff had received training to support people to take their medicines as prescribed. The provider took appropriate steps to recruit staff of good character.
People were involved in the planning of their care, and care plans focused on the individual’s preferences and how they would like their care delivered. Plans were regularly reviewed to make sure people continued to have the support they needed. Detailed guidance was provided to staff about how to provide all areas of the care and support people needed.
There was enough care staff to allocate all the visits people required and to meet people's needs safely. Most people said staff usually arrived around the time expected. People had mixed experience of continuity of care staff, with several people saying they would like this to be more consistent. Everyone we spoke with said staff stayed long enough to do everything that was needed without having to rush.
People were provided with care which continued to be effective in meeting their individual needs. Staff received training that provided them with the skills and knowledge to support people’s needs and had regular checks on their practice to make sure they continued to support people safely.
People's right to make their own decisions about their care were supported by staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. When needed, arrangements were in place to support people to have enough to eat and drink and remain in good health.
The provider remained responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People were provided with care and support which was individual to them. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and promoted their independence which people appreciated. People’s care and support needs were kept under review and staff responded when there were changes in these needs.
People were encouraged to raise concerns and make complaints and were confident these would be responded to. The management team used feedback from people to assist them in making improvements to the service.
Staff told us they were very happy in their work and that they received excellent support from an experienced management team who were always available to give advice. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had regular supervision and observations of their practice to make sure they carried these out safely.
Feedback from people and their representatives were continually sought and used as an opportunity for improving the service people received. There continued to be effective and responsive processes for assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.
There was a clearly defined management structure which the provider had increased since our previous inspection. The management team worked well together and were committed to providing a high quality service to people. The provider and registered manager had a clear vision for the development of the service and demonstrated a commitment to implement best practice to improve the service. They were both passionate about providing a good service and were working hard towards providing an outstanding service.
Plan-it Homecare is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal support to people in their own homes. At the time of our visit the agency supported approximately 100 people.
We visited the offices of Plan-it Homecare on 1 September 2015. We told the provider two working days before the visit we were coming so they could arrange for staff to be available to talk with us about the service.
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.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Care workers were trained in safeguarding adults and understood how to protect them from abuse. There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety; these included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Checks were carried out prior to care workers starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who used the service.
The provider and registered manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and care workers gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.
People who required support had enough to eat and drink during the day and were assisted to manage their health needs, if this was part of their care plan.
Most people had consistent care workers who arrived on time and stayed the agreed length of time. However, some people said the length of time care workers stayed varied from what they expected. There were enough suitably trained care workers to deliver effective care to people. People told us care workers were kind and caring and had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support they required.
Care plans and risk assessments contained relevant information for care workers to help them provide the personalised care people required. People were able to share their views and opinions about the quality of the service they received. People knew how to complain and information about making a complaint was available for people. Staff were confident they could raise any concerns or issues with the provider and registered manager, knowing they would be listened to and acted on.
The provider and registered manager were dedicated to providing quality care to people. Staff and people who used the service found them open, approachable, and responsive. There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through regular communication with people and staff, returned surveys, checks on care workers to make sure they worked in line with policies and procedures and a programme of other checks and audits.
We looked at the care records for three people who used the service. We were satisfied people were receiving the care they needed and had consented to. We found care plans provided staff with sufficient information about the care and support people required.
People said they were visited before the service started and an assessment was completed. One person told us, 'Yes, it was very thorough. She listened to me and explained everything.'
People told us care staff stayed long enough to do everything they needed and that staff took their time and did not rush. People said care workers were polite and caring. One person said, 'The care workers are very polite, they are all lovely. Everyone I've met from the agency has been kind and caring.'
We looked at the medication and recruitment procedures. We found there was a safe procedure for assisting people with medication. We were satisfied care workers had been recruited safely and had the necessary skills and experience to work with people using the service.
Records showed the agency had systems in place to monitor the service provided and for managing identified risks. People told us they were satisfied with the care they received. One person told us, 'I can't tell you how impressed I am with this care agency.'