2, 5 September 2014
During a routine inspection
As part of our inspection we contacted 15 people using the service or their relatives. We spoke with ten people by telephone and we spent the morning with two response workers who attended three calls to people in their homes. We observed how they responded to calls for assistance.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
The people we spoke with said they were happy with the service and felt it was delivered in a safe way. One person said, 'I always wear my pendant even if I go outside because I know staff will come if I get into difficulty.' Another person said, 'Staff can get into my house if I have fallen and that makes me feel safe.' Another person said, 'I trust the staff, they are very good, I know they make sure my house is secure when they leave me.'
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Is the service effective?
The service continually reviewed how staff responded to calls to ensure they were answered in a timely manner. We observed staff attending to calls. They were kind, courteous and efficient.
Is the service caring?
We found staff offered to contact other essential services when the attended calls. One person said, 'Staff offered to send me to hospital but I refused.' People who received the service were respected and spoken to in a dignified manner.
Is the service responsive?
The nature of the service meant people were responded to quickly. We saw records that showed staff were dealing with calls within three minutes. When staff completed the call they contacted the call centre to find out if any other callers required assistance.
Is the service well-led?
There were systems in place to gain people's views and check if staff were following company policies. We saw satisfaction surveys and meetings had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed.
We saw there was a system in place to assess how the service was operating and address any shortfalls. Where areas of improvement were indicated action plans were in place to address identified shortfalls.
Staff told us they were supported by managers who understood the pressures that staff often faced when responding to emergency calls. They told us they were encouraged to discuss any concerns and were given 'time out' if needed. We found the staff worked well as a team and provided a valuable service to people in the community.