We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead Senior Care 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 Home Instead Senior Care, 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:
Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm, and people felt safe when receiving support. Enough staff were available to meet people’s needs, and people’s medicines were managed safely. Staff had the knowledge, skills and time to care for people in a safe and consistent manner. Robust recruitment and selection process' were in place.
Staff were trained and supported people in a personalised and effective way. Staff sought people’s consent before giving care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were encouraged to live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that included understanding, control, choice and independence. Staff had formed positive relationships with the people they supported and looked for ways to make them feel valued.
Staff knew people well and used this knowledge to care for them and support them to achieve their goals. Staff were considerate of people's feelings and treated people with the utmost respect and dignity.
People spoke positively about staff and said they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff continued to work at people’s pace and supported them to maintain their independence for as long as possible.
Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and provided person centred care which put people at the heart of the service. They continued to find ways of supporting people to have a good quality of life. People told us the service was flexible and based on their personal wishes and preferences. Where there were changes in people’s needs, these were addressed quickly and without any difficulties.
People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints. People’s feedback was valued, and people felt that they could raise issues in the knowledge that they would be listened to and swift action would be taken.
Staff understood the importance of supporting people to live life to the full whilst they were fit and able to do so. They also understood that supporting people at the end of their life was equally important. End of life care plans included people's wishes to ensure their passing was as comfortable, and as peaceful as possible.
People benefitted from a service that had a dedicated registered manager whose experience and qualifications were used to support people to lead full and meaningful lives. People's views were sought out and acted upon. Robust quality assurance processes were in place to ensure the safety, high quality, and effectiveness of the service.
People had confidence in the management of the service which worked effectively to ensure people’s needs were met. The management promoted strong values which were embedded in the service. Robust systems were in place to seek the views of people who used the service and check the quality of the service. Spot checks, care planning review meetings and audits were carried out on a regular basis.
The management team and staff continued to find ways to improve the service and remain driven by their passion for caring for people, including those with dementia.
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 (29 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.
The service provides care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection they were providing care for 45 people of which 17 people received personal care. The People using the service had a range of needs, including physical or learning disabilities and older People, some of whom may be living with dementia.
The service had 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 & Social Care Act and associated regulations about how the service is run.
Without exception, the feedback we received from people who used the service and their relatives was good. They expressed a high level of confidence in the management and individual staff to provide safe, compassionate care that met their needs in the way they liked to be supported.
Staff demonstrated a clear commitment to protecting people from possible harm, and were knowledgeable about how they should do this. Systems were in place to identify and minimise any risks to people.
Staff were well trained and had a very good understanding of people’s care needs. The manager offered high level support to staff, ensuring that they were familiar with people’s needs, and had the skills and knowledge to meet them before they started to provide support. Each person was supported by a consistent team of staff to ensure that they received care from staff who knew them and that they felt safe with.
The provider demonstrated a compassionate and person centred approach to care and people told us they enjoyed positive relationships with staff that were friendly and respectful. They confirmed staff took care to protect their dignity and privacy.
The service provided to people was based on their individual needs and was flexible to accommodate any changes that were required. People felt able to express their views and the provider sought feedback from people to support continuous improvements to the service.
There were effective processes in place to monitor the quality of the care provided to people
who used the service. The provider demonstrated strong values based on high quality person centred care, and this was reflected by the staff, who were proud to work for the service and were clearly motivated to do their jobs well.
Is the service safe?
We saw the service had systems in place to ensure people received visits to their homes on time to provide care and support. The service carried out spot checks on staff who delivered support. The service also recorded times and lengths of each visit. Before people received care they were personally introduced to the person who would be visiting them to give support. All staff carried photographic identification.
We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse, and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to recognise signs of abuse and respond to any concerns identified.
We saw that the service had a robust recruitment process and employed staff after appropriate checks were completed. Staff completed mandatory training and had an induction before working with people. This meant that people were protected from potential harm because the provider took care to only employ staff who had been vetted as safe to work with vulnerable people.
Is the service effective?
People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were met.
Is the service caring?
Staff we spoke with were able to demonstrate they knew people well as individuals. A relative we spoke with said the service goes: "Above and beyond." A person who used the service said: "I look forward to them [staff] coming."
Is the service responsive?
We saw from records that the service responded to people's changing needs. We saw examples where time spent with people was increased and where additional staff was needed this was provided. Relatives told us that the service was able to respond to their requests when the needs of their relative changed. We saw evidence of the service putting together a support package for one person being discharged from hospital on the day of our inspection. This told us the service could respond quickly to people's changing support requirements.
Is the service well led?
The service had a quality monitoring system in place. Records seen by us showed that people were regularly asked for their feedback of the service. As a result the quality of the service had been maintained. We saw from records that staff had regular meetings, supervision and appraisals from the manager, to ensure staff performance was monitored.