You are here

Home First – Stoke Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2018

Home First – Stoke is registered to provide personal care for people in their own home who are clinically safe for discharge and do not require an acute hospital bed. However, they may still require care services which were provided in the short term in their own home (where appropriate) or another community setting. Assessment for longer-term care and support needs was then undertaken in the most appropriate setting and at the right time for the person.

At this inspection Home First - Stoke were providing personal care for 111 people.

At the time of this inspection Home First – Stoke did not have a registered manager in post. Day to day management of the service was provided by an interim service manager. We were informed by the interim service manager that a decision had yet to be made regarding the registered manager position. 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 inspection activity started on 30 October 2018 and ended on 6 November 2018. This service has not been previously inspected.

People did not receive support at a time that suited their personal circumstances or individual preferences.

The provider was not meeting its requirements of registration with the Care Quality Commission as it did not have a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection.

People were safe as staff members had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them from danger, harm and abuse. People had individual assessments of risk associated with their care and support. Staff members knew how to support people in a way that minimised the risks of harm associated with their care. The provider followed infection prevention and control guidance. The provider ensured that the equipment people used was in safe working order. When needed, people received help with their medicines from staff who were trained to safely support them. The provider undertook regular checks to ensure people received their medicines as directed.

The provider completed checks on staff before they started work to ensure they were safe to work with people. The provider had systems in place to address any unsafe staff practice which included disciplinary action or retraining if needed.

People received care from staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. New staff members received an induction to their role and were equipped with the skills they needed to work with people. Staff attended training that was relevant to those they supported and any additional training needed to meet people’s requirements was provided.

People had their rights protected by staff members who were aware of current guidance informing their practice. Staff received support and guidance from a management team who they found approachable.

People had positive relationships with the staff members who supported them. People’s care and support needs and preferences were known by staff who assisted them in a way which was personal to them. People were involved in decisions about their care and had information they needed in a way they understood.

People had their privacy and dignity respected and information personal to them was treated confidentially. People had access to healthcare when needed and staff responded to any changes in needs promptly and consistently. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain good health. People were given information in a way they could understand.

The provider completed regular quality checks to satisfy themselves that people were receiving appropriate support and care. People felt confident they were listened to and their views were valued. People and staff felt able to exp

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was not always safe.

People did not receive their calls at a time that suited their individual preferences. People did not receive support from a consistent staff team.

People were protected from the risks of abuse by a staff team who knew how to recognise signs and knew what to do if they had concerns. People had individual assessments of risk associated with their care and staff members knew how to safely support people. People were supported to take their medicines by staff who were competent to do so. Processes were in place to investigate any incidents or accidents to minimise the risk of reoccurrence. Infection prevention and control measures were in place which staff members followed.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was effective.

People had assessments of their needs completed which followed recognised best practice. People were assisted by staff members who were trained and supported to undertake their role. Staff members received regular support from the management team. People had their rights protected by staff members who were aware off and who followed current guidance. People had access to healthcare to maintain wellbeing. When needed, people received support with their diet and nutrition which took account of their personal preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was caring.

People had positive and good relationships with the staff who supported them. People had their privacy and dignity protected when they were assisted. People’s diversity was respected by staff members. People were provided with information relating to their care in a way they understood. People’s personal information was kept confidential by the staff members supporting them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People were involved in their assessments of care. People received care from staff members who knew their individual preferences. People and their relatives were encouraged to raise any issues. The management team had systems in place to address any concerns or complaints. People received appropriate end of life care that accounted for their individual preferences.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2018

The service was not always well-led.

There was no registered manager in post.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and to drive improvements if needed. People and staff members found the management team approachable and supportive. The provider had good links with the local community and facilities.