You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 September 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Euroclydon is a service providing care and support to people in their own home. The service is registered to provide personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (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 our inspection there were 22 people with a variety of care needs, including older people and people living with dementia using the service.

People's experience of using this service and what we found:

Staff understood how to keep people in their care safe from harm. Where risks to individuals had been identified, measures had been put in place to reduce or eliminate those risks. Safe systems were in place to ensure people got their medicines at the right times. Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff to provide people with timely care and support.

Staff received appropriate training and provided people with support to meet their nutrition, hydration and health care needs. People's care needs were assessed before a service was offered, to make sure staff would be able to meet their needs.

People's communication needs were identified, recorded and highlighted in care plans and staff communicated with people effectively to ascertain and respect their wishes. People told us they received support from staff who were kind and caring and that personal care was person-centred and individualised.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and were treated with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to be independent and their equality and diversity needs were respected.

People's care needs were clearly identified in their care plans. Care plans were developed to make sure staff knew what they needed to do to meet those needs. A complaints procedure was in place and people said they would speak to the registered manager if they had any concerns.

People were supported by a team of staff who were happy in their jobs. The registered manager completed a range of regular checks on the quality and safety of the service. People told us they would recommend the service to others.

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

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was Good (published 10 March 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.

Inspection carried out on 10 January 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 10 and 18 January 2017 and was announced. Euroclydon provides domiciliary care services to people who live in their own home. The service works alongside Aspire House (as part as Aspire Affiliates Limited) and provides a service in Forest of Dean and the surrounding area. We inspected both Aspire House and Euroclydon at the same time as the two services have the same management structure and records. At the time of our inspection there were 32 people with a variety of care needs, including older people and people living with dementia using the service.

We last inspected in April 2014. At the April 2014 inspection we found that the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations at that time.

There was a registered manager in post. The registered manager was also the provider of the 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.

People received safe and effective care which enabled them to live in their own homes. People and their relatives praised the care staff and spoke positively about the care they received. The care people received was personalised to their needs. People and their relatives felt involved in their care and spoke positively about the relationships they had with staff.

People told us they felt listened to and could not fault the care they received. People were cared for by care staff who were supported by the registered manager and provider. Staff had access to professional development. The registered manager and provider knew the needs of staff and had systems to ensure staff had access to the training and support they needed.

The registered manager and provider had systems to monitor the quality of service people received. The systems enabled the registered manager and provider to identify concerns and drive improvements.

Inspection carried out on 10, 22 April 2014

During a routine inspection

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

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

This inspection was completed by one inspector. They visited the office and three people in receipt of personal care. This is a summary of what we found based on our observations, speaking with five people who used the service, or their representative and two additional relatives, talking with three staff and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. They were complementary about how staff supported them and described staff as professional and friendly. They were confident that if they had any concerns, the provider would listen to them and address them. Records demonstrated that staff acted to safeguard people when they had concerns about their well-being.

We saw that people, or their representatives, were involved in the assessment of their needs and care planning. Environmental risks within people’s homes had been assessed and external health professionals had been involved with assessments when this was indicated. People told us how staff worked with them, or their relative, to maintain their independence, for example using prompts and reminders to help them with daily tasks. People told us they felt respected and listened to by staff. One person said: “They respect that I’m a private person. It’s a marvellous service.”

No incidents or accidents that required investigation had occurred since the agency began providing care in June 2013.

Is the service effective?

People were given information about the service they could expect to receive. People were positive about their experience of the service and were happy about the standard of care they received. Comments from people included, “They do what they are supposed to do” and “They know the routine”. Feedback about the quality of the service and how well it met people’s needs was sought regularly and care plan reviews were carried out each month.

The provider worked closely with external health professionals carrying out joint assessments with occupational therapists and physiotherapists. Records showed that advice from health professionals was taken into account when planning care. The provider attended care planning meetings with other providers when appropriate to ensure continuity between services.

Is the service caring?

During our conversations with staff they demonstrated a caring and professional approach toward the people they supported. One person said, “They are very friendly. They sit down and talk to you.”

The representative of a person with dementia described staff as “patient” and “inclusive”. They added, “It’s not them and us. We are very respected and involved.” They told us a staff member recently accompanied their relative when they had needed to be admitted to hospital. The staff member staff knew their relative’s needs and helped them to accept the care provided as they “trusted them”.

Is the service responsive?

Prior to our inspection we were contacted by a representative of a person who had previously used the service. They raised concerns about whether there were enough staff and whether staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

We observed that when a request for care came into the agency, they checked there were sufficient staff available for the times required before accepting the referral. Staff rotas showed that staff worked flexible hours providing a variety of full-time or part-time hours each week, to meet demand. Three additional staff members had recently been recruited. Staff did not feel rushed when providing care and had time to talk to people who used the service. Staff had relevant qualifications and / or experience to meet the needs of people who used the service. One person’s representative told us the service had been: “very responsive” to their requests for additional support and had “quickly arranged care” when requested.

People told us they could text or ring the agency if they needed to speak with anyone or wanted to change anything. Another person said the agency “try to accommodate extra”.

Care reviews and quality checks were carried out at regular intervals to ensure that people’s needs were being met. The provider discussed options open to people as their care needs and preferences changed. No formal complaints had been received.

Is the service well led?

Staff and people who used the service all told us the service was well-led. One person’s representative said, “I can only speak highly of them.” Another person said, “They are really really good. Everyone’s important.” Staff told us the registered manager was always available if they needed help or advice, including on weekends and out of hours. Staff told us that high standards were expected of them and one staff member described the manager as “really thorough”.

Staff were enthusiastic about their work, they understood their responsibilities and said they felt listened to and supported. We found the staff team were supportive of each other and worked well with external health and social care professionals.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. External feedback and advice had been sought in response to the quality concerns raised by a representative of a person who previously used the service, as outlined above.