2 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 caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on the people we spoke with who used the service, the staff who supported them and from looking at records.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe with the staff that cared for them. There were procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
People who used the agency had appropriate assessments that identified the risks. These were kept under review which reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work at the agency. The recruitment process was safe and thorough.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in reviewing their plans of care and support. We saw evidence in one care record where a mental capacity assessment had taken place to check whether the person had capacity to consent to their care and treatment.
People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.
It was clear from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.
Staff told us they received effective support from the provider and said they had good regular communication.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with one person who was supported by the service and two relatives. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. What people told us was positive, one person who used the agency said; 'I'm very happy with the care'. A relative said; "Fantastic, they take a lot of pressure off'.
People were supported by staff who demonstrated a clear understanding of their needs. When we spoke with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.
People who used the service and their relatives had completed satisfaction survey. All of the results from this were positive.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. One person told us they had been supported to attend their local church.
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff on duty. Staff shared examples of how they promoted people's privacy and dignity in their everyday practice.
Is the service responsive?
We saw the agency had been responsive to people's changing needs. We saw an example when a relative could not care for the person due to a change in their circumstances. We found that the provider had taken immediate steps which ensured that the person received care at the correct times.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They told us the management team always welcomed their suggestions for improvement. They considered the service was well-led. They said they received regular opportunities to meet on an individual and felt supported in their work.