Archived: Comficare Ltd

Comficare provides care in people's homes. They were providing personal care and support to 23 people and employed 17 care staff at the time of this inspection. As part of this inspection we visited four people in their own home to hear their views of the service. We also spoke with three people by telephone and four relatives. During the inspection we met with the Registered Manager and two care staff. We spoke with another four care staff by telephone. Following the inspection we spoke with two health professionals who were involved in the care of people receiving a service from Comficare.

We reviewed the records held at the office and in people's homes. We looked at the records kept in respect of people's care such as their care plans, policies and procedures and staff personnel and training records.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe when receiving care from staff. Comments included, 'They (staff) never rush and they are always respectful of me and my home'; and 'They (staff) keep me safe. They help me stay at home'.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care plans and risk assessments were available in people's homes for staff to follow. However people were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because records were not always accurate, or up to date.

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

The recruitment process was sufficiently robust, with all the recruitment documents in place before staff commenced work. This meant people using the service could be assured staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

People were safe because staffing levels were sufficient to meet their needs. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were never rushed.

Is the service effective?

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. DoLS do not apply to care in people's homes.

The service was effective because staff received relevant training and support to meet people's needs. Staff knew how to respond to specific health care needs and were observed to be competent. For example, recognising changes in a person's physical health and reporting changes to the manager and relevant health care professionals.

Is the service caring?

People using the service and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Comments included, 'Staff treat me very well. They understand me. They are very kind girls'; 'It is a lovely personal service. We have a good relationship with all staff'; 'I can't find anything bad to say. Staff are polite and respectful'; 'They (staff) are considerate and kind, all of them' and 'They always listen and do their best'. One relative told us, 'The staff are nurturing and kind. I can just stand back and relax now with the care they provide'.

During the home visits we observed that staff were polite and respectful. Staff always involved people in decisions about how they wanted their care to be delivered and they respected people's choices. Staff had a good understanding of the needs and preferred routines of people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

People using the service told us visits were never missed; staff arrived on time and always stayed for the allocated time of the visit. People told us the service was responsive, for example if they needed to change the times of visits this was accommodated.

People were assured the service was responsive in listening to any concerns/complaints. We found complaints and concerns were taken seriously by the manager and action was taken in a timely way to resolve any issues raised. Comments from people included, 'I like the manager. She is easy to talk to and very helpful'. Another said, 'The manager and deputy are wonderful. They listen and take action immediately'.

Staff told us the manager was supportive and always available to provide guidance when needed.

Is the service well-led?

There was a Registered Manager in place. A Registered Manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People using the service, relatives and staff spoke positively about how the manager was accessible, approachable and worked well with them.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. The outcome from the most recent satisfaction survey showed high rates of satisfaction with the service. Comments from people included, 'Overall it is an excellent service'; 'Things couldn't be better'; 'It provides the support we need when we need it most' and 'We can't thank them enough'. All those spoken with said they would recommend the service to others and none could identify any improvements when asked.

The manager had a plan in place to improve the audit systems and quality of the records.