You are here

Better Healthcare Services Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

This inspection of Better Healthcare Services took place between 19 and 30 April 2018. Our visit to the office was announced to make sure the manager was available.

At our previous inspection in August 2017, we found three breaches of regulation. We found that improvements were needed to assessing risks, staffing levels and governance of the service. The service was rated overall Requires Improvement. Following the inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe and Well-led to at least good. The provider told us that they would review care records and auditing systems to improve the guidance to staff and reduce risks to people. They also said they would provide training to staff, including the registered manager, to ensure staff knew what they needed to change and why. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the service is now rated as Good.

Better Healthcare Services is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of our visit 39 people were using the service.

Not everyone using Better Healthcare Services receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager at this service 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.’

Staff knew how to respond to possible harm and how to reduce risks to people. Improvements were made to risk assessments, which meant staff had guidance to reduce risks to people. Lessons were learnt about accidents and incidents and these were shared with staff members to ensure changes were made to staff practise to reduce further occurrences. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were administered safely. Staff used personal protective equipment to reduce the risk of cross infection to people.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received support with meals, if this was needed.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

There was enough information for staff to contact health care professionals if needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them. People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this.

A complaints system was in place and there was information available so people knew who to speak with if they had concerns. Staff were supported to care for people at the end of their lives if this became necessary.

Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team, which promoted a culture for staff to provide person centred care. The provider’s monitoring process had improved and looked at systems relating to the care of people, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these. People’s views were s

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was safe.

Staff assessed risks and acted to protect people from harm. Staff knew what actions to take if they had concerns about people�s safety.

There were enough staff available to meet people�s care needs. Checks for new staff members were undertaken before they started work to ensure they were safe to work within care.

Staff received the support they needed to help people with their medicines if required.

Infection control practices were in place and staff followed these to reduce the risk of cross infection.

Effective systems were in place to learn lessons from accidents/ incidents and reduce risks to people.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was effective.

Systems were in place to make sure people�s care and support was provided in line with good practice guidance.

Staff members received enough training to provide people with the care they required.

People were supported to prepare meals and drinks as independently as possible.

Information was available to support people if they moved services. Staff worked with health care professionals to ensure people�s health care needs were met.

Staff supported people to continue making decisions for themselves.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was caring.

Staff members developed good relationships with people using the service and their relatives, which ensured people received the care they needed in the way they preferred.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People had their individual care needs properly planned for and staff were knowledgeable about the care people required.

People had information if they wished to complain and there were procedures to investigate and respond to these.

Information was available about people�s end of life wishes if this was appropriate.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 May 2018

The service was well led.

Staff members and the registered manager worked well with each other so that people received a good service.

Good leadership was in place and the service was well run.

The quality and safety of the care provided was regularly monitored to drive improvement.

People�s views were obtained about changes to their service and what they would like to happen.

Staff contacted other organisations appropriately to report issues and provide joined-up care to people.