Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 5 June 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

This inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector and an assistant inspector.

Service and service type:

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everybody using Home Instead Senior Care received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do so we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was carried out on 27 February and 8 March 2019; the first day was unannounced. On the second day we visited people by arrangement who used the service to gain their perspective.

What we did:

As part of planning the inspection we looked at information the provider had sent us in their Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We looked at information we held about the service as part of our ingoing monitoring; including any statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also spoke with the local authority to gain their perspective of the service.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, four relatives of people, one health and social care professional and seven members of staff including the registered manager and the nominated individual. We also looked at records at the home which included records relating to staff recruitment and support, audits and quality assurance reports and the care plans for six people.

Updated 5 June 2019

About the service: Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and their relatives told us they felt very safe using the service. The service was extremely reliable, and the care staff were timely. One person said, “They are always on time. That helps tremendously; it helps us organise our lives.”

There were robust systems in place that ensured the service was very reliable. There was an electronic system which alerted staff if somebody’s visit was later than expected. Action was then taken to investigate and ensure people were safe and received their visits as required. One person’s relative told us, “The system works brilliantly; it gives me reassurance as I live far away.”

The recruitment of new staff was safe and staff members were trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. There were appropriate risk assessments in place for risks that may arise when providing care and support for people and how these risks would be reduced. People were supported to take their medication safely.

People and their relatives praised the skills and approach of staff members. One person’s relative said. “They are outstanding. The staff say how much they enjoy caring for [name], which is very reassuring for me.”

At the service there was a strong focus on maximising training and support opportunities to enable staff to be as effective as possible in their role. All staff members were very positive about the training and support they received. They told us they felt well supported, well equipped for the role, happy and were looked after by senior staff. A personal interest was shown in each staff member.

The training process was creative with a focus on developing the empathy, compassion and interpersonal skills of staff to ensure positive relationships were developed with people using the service. Staff members told us that during supervision meetings they were supported in developing their relationships with people.

People were truly respected and valued as individuals. People told us that staff were caring and supportive of them. One person said, “I feel happier when they [care staff] are here.” Another person had written to the service saying about their care giver, “They have been the perfect care giver. She has supported us with total professionalism. Always on time, a shoulder to cry on, a helping hand when needed and totally honest in every way.”

People were treated with the upmost dignity and their privacy was deeply respected. One person told us, “Carers coming into our home is an intrusion; but they make it as easy as possible.” Another person’s care plan contained information for staff on how to ensure their visits did not excessively interrupt the person’s day. The visits were planned around the person’s favourite television programs and family events. Staff knew when the person wished to have personal space.

Staff spoke very positively about people and their role. One staff member told us, “It’s a massive privilege to support people in their own homes.”

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People’s consent to their care was sought during the assessment and care planning process. Their permission was sought before care and support was provided even if this had previously been agreed and was in a person’s support plan. This showed people respect in their own home and acknowledged that people may change their minds. People were supported to remain in control of their lives as much as possible.

Each person had an individualised, person centred care plan. Care plans were set out as a series of outcomes that people wished to achieve and had clear details of what support a person agreed they needed to safely achieve these outcomes. People’s care plans also contained details of what people were able to do for themselves or could achieve with some support. People and their relatives told us that they were involved in putting together their care plans. If appropriate the service also worked closely with health professionals in the design and delivery of people’s care.

People and their relatives told us that the service was well-led and of high quality. One person’s family member told us, “I was very nervous of going through an agency. But the compassion and respect [name] and I get are amazing.” One person said that they could not have coped without the service they received. They said, “It was the best thing I could have done.”

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (June 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: Ongoing monitoring.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk