GC Home Care

This announced inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. The expert by experience had knowledge of care services including domiciliary services.

There was a registered manager in the service. 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.

On our last inspection on 8 September 2015 the service was rated as Good; on this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. People were protected from unnecessary harm by staff who knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report concerns. The staff were confident that any concerns would be reported by the registered manager. Individual risks were assessed and reviewed to keep people safe and protect them from avoidable harm. Some people received assistance to take medicines and records were kept to ensure that this was done safely. There were enough staff to provide care for people and safe recruitment procedures in place to ensure they were suitable to work with people.

People continued to receive effective care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible. People were able to make decisions about how they wanted to receive support to ensure their health needs were met. Staff were supported and trained to ensure that they had the skills to support people effectively. When people required assistance to eat and drink, the provider ensured that this was planned to meet their preferences and assessed need.

The care people received remained good. People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well. People liked the staff who supported them and had developed good relationships. People had a small team of staff who provided their support in the way they wanted. Care was planned and reviewed with people and the provider ensured that people’s choices were followed. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and upheld by the staff.

The service remained responsive. People had care records that included information about how they wanted to be supported and this was reviewed to reflect any changing needs. There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to complain and were confident these would be responded to.

The service remained well led. Staff listened to people’s views about their care and they were able to influence the development of the service. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager. The quality of care was assessed and monitored to ensure standards were met and maintained. The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration and informed us of information that we needed to know. The manager promoted an open culture which put people at the heart of the service.

We spoke with three relatives. They told us their family members received care that met their needs. One relative said, 'All of the carers are lovely. They look after [their family member] well.' They told us staff treated their family member with dignity and respect.

People using the service told us they felt safe and also felt their belongings and finances were protected.

We found there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

People using the service told us they felt there were enough staff employed by the service to meet their needs. One person said, 'I like regular people and I do get regular people.' We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We found staff received an induction, supervision, training and appraisals.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We spoke with three relatives. They told us their relatives had care plans and were well cared for. However, we found examples where information recorded in some care records was not appropriately recorded in other sections of people's care records.

People using the service who we spoke with told us they felt safe. However, we saw that the systems for reporting allegations of abuse to the local authority, police and to the Care Quality Commission were not working effectively.

We saw that some staff had previous criminal convictions. We discussed this with the manager. They were unable to show us evidence that risk assessments had been completed before staff were appointed to their roles.

People using the service who we spoke with told us staff were well trained. However, one person said, 'One carer could do with a bit more training.' We also saw that eight out of nine staff had only received supervision once during the year.

We saw evidence that some reviews and audits were overdue.