You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Shivas Home-Care. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 July 2016

Shivas Home-Care provides personal care for people living at home in the Central Bedfordshire and Northampton areas. At the time of our inspection there were ten people receiving personal care. This unannounced inspection took place on 14 and 16 June 2016.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

The registered manager was also the owner, and as a provider they had values and a clear vision that were person centred and focussed on enabling and encouraging people to live a full and independent lifestyle. All staff and the manager demonstrated passion and commitment to providing a service for people that met their individual needs.

People had therapeutic relationships with staff. People who used the service and their relatives commented on the positive impact staff had made on people’s lives and how they had been supported to achieve their goals and to become more independent. The provider helped people recognise and celebrate their achievements. People’s lives had improved as a result of using the service; relatives and health professionals commented on the people’s enhanced health and well-being.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff provided people with information to enable them to make an informed decision and encouraged people to make their own choices.

People received safe care and support. Staff understood their role in safeguarding people and they knew how to report concerns. There were enough staff with the right skills and attitudes to meet people’s needs.

People benefited from staff that had received training that specifically met their needs. Staff had a full understanding of people’s support needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. Training records were up to date and staff received regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities in caring for people and received regular support from the provider.

Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures required to minimise any risks. Staff were vigilant regarding people’s changing health needs and sought guidance from relevant healthcare professionals.

Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. All interactions between staff and people were caring and respectful; staff were consistently patient, kind and compassionate. Staff demonstrated affection and warmth in their contact with people, which was clearly reciprocated.

Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and people were confident that if they had any concerns they would be listened to and any concerns would be addressed.

The provider monitored the quality and safety of the service and staff regularly monitored the support people received. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 July 2016

The service was safe.

People felt safe and staff were clear on their roles and responsibilities to safeguard them.

Risk assessments were in place and were reviewed and managed in a way which enabled people to safely pursue their independence and receive safe support.

People received their care and support from sufficient numbers of staff that had been appropriately recruited and had the skills and experience to provide safe care.

There were systems in place to manage medicines in a safe way and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 July 2016

The service was effective.

People received care from staff that had received training and support to carry out their roles.

People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs and how they spent their day. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA).

People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals to ensure they received the care, support and treatment that they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 July 2016

The service was caring.

People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided and their privacy and dignity were protected and promoted.

There were positive interactions between people using the service and staff.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 July 2016

This service was responsive.

People were involved in the planning of their care which was person centred and updated regularly.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. There was a complaints system in place and people were confident that any complaints would be responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 July 2016

This service was well-led.

A registered manager was in post and they were approachable and flexible to ensure people’s needs were met.

The registered manager was active and visible to people using the service. They worked alongside staff and offered regular support and guidance.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive continuous improvement.

Management completed regular audits and a quality assurance system was in place to review the quality of the service.