You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We have not inspected this service yet

Inspection summaries and ratings from previous provider


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

This inspection started with a visit to the office location on 22 June 2017 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the people we needed to speak with were available. On 24 June we made calls to people who use the service and staff to gain their views and experiences. This was Noble Live-In Care’s first inspection since they registered with CQC in May 2016.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. At the time of this inspection the service was providing the regulated activity of personal care to 15 people who lived in their own homes. The agency was providing care to people in different locations throughout England. These services were managed by the agency from an office in South Gloucestershire. People using the service, their families and Noble Live-In staff used the term ‘care companion’ when referring to care staff. Therefore, we will refer to staff as companions in the report and staff when we refer to them collectively. The management team consisted of the provider, registered manager, a training coordinator/care manager and a recruitment/administration manager.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 feedback we received from people was very positive throughout. Those people who used the service expressed great satisfaction and spoke highly of all staff and services provided. One person told us, “The whole experience has been first class, I couldn’t have wished for more”.

The safety of people who used the service was taken seriously and the registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibility to protect people’s health and wellbeing. There were systems in place to ensure that risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were identified and addressed.

The whole staff team were highly motivated and proud of the service. All staff were fully supported by the management team and a programme of training and supervision enabled them to provide a good quality service to people. The registered manager, provider and all staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and, worked to ensure people's rights were respected.

The registered manager ensured that staff had a full understanding of people’s care needs and had the skills and knowledge to meet them. People received consistent support from care companions who knew them well. People had positive, caring relationships with their companions and were confident in the service. There was a strong emphasis on key principles of care such as compassion, respect and dignity and promoting independence. People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was always respected.

People received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Changes in people’s needs were quickly identified and their care package amended to meet their changing needs. The service was flexible and responded very positively to people’s requests. People who used the service felt able to make requests and express their opinions and views.

People benefitted from a service that was well led. The vision, values and culture of the service were clearly communicated to and understood by staff. The provider had implemented a programme of ‘planned growth’ that had been well managed. The provider and registered manager were very committed to continuous improvement. The registered manager demonstrated strong values and, a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service.

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of effective quality assurance systems. There were processes in place to monitor quality and understand the experiences of people who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had received training in safeguarding so they would recognise abuse and know what to do if they had any concerns.

People received care from staff who took steps to protect them from unnecessary harm. Risks had been appropriately assessed and staff had been provided with clear guidance on the management of identified risks.

People were protected through the providers recruitment procedures. These procedures helped ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

People were protected against the risks associated with unsafe use and management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who had received sufficient training to meet their individual needs.

People were cared for by staff who received regular and effective support and supervision.

Staff promoted and respected people�s choices and decisions. The registered manager and senior staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Where necessary people were provided with a healthy diet which promoted their health and well-being and took into account their nutritional requirements and personal preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was caring.

The registered manager and staff were committed to providing care that was kind, respectful and dignified.

People who used the service valued the relationships they had with staff and expressed satisfaction with the care they received.

People were pleased with the consistency of their care staff and felt that their care was provided in the way they wanted it to be.

People felt all staff treated them with kindness and respect and often went above and beyond their roles.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was responsive.

Changes in people�s needs were quickly recognised and appropriate prompt action taken, including the involvement of external professionals where necessary.

People felt the service was very flexible and based on their personal wishes and preferences. Where changes in people�s care packages were requested, these were made quickly and without any difficulties.

People were actively encouraged to give their views and raise concerns or complaints because the service viewed concerns and complaints as part of driving improvement.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 August 2017

The service was well led

The registered manager promoted strong values and a person centred culture. Staff were proud to work for the service and were supported in understanding the values of the agency.

There was strong emphasis on continual improvement and best practice which benefited people and staff.

There were good systems to assure quality and identify any potential improvements to the service. This meant people benefited from a constantly improving service that they were at the heart of.