Home Instead

Updated 20 June 2018

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

This was a comprehensive inspection.

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 March 2018. We gave the provider notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available and to arrange consent for visits and telephone calls we made. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an ‘expert by experience’. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service; the expert carried out telephone interviews.

Before the inspection the provider completed a 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 checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. This included statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We used all of this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

We spoke with eight people using the service, 11 of their relatives, four health and social care professionals, staff, the registered manager and senior managers from the organisation. We spent time looking at records, including six care records, three staff files, medication administration record (MAR) sheets, staff training plans, complaints and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 20 June 2018

Home Instead Senior Care is a registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide ‘personal care’ to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. Home Instead Senior Care office base is located in Southport. The office building has accessibility for people who required disabled access.

At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 100 people who were located in Southport and wider areas of Sefton. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

A registered manager was in post. The registered manager had led the care team consistently for eight years.

The key strength of the service was that support was provided to people on a flexible basis and in accordance with their identified needs. People who received care and support provided us with consistently positive feedback. They said they received a reliable service and an excellent standard of support from caring, kind and compassionate staff. One person said, “They are very compassionate; my [relative] has developed a bond with one of them in particular” and “There is an element of companionship. They are always interested in you as a person.”

Relatives we spoke with were equally positive and spoke about the quality of the supportive relationship care staff had built. One relative commented, “I am relieved that it has gone so well and I can relax. It is quite amazing how well they have got to know [person] – the set-up is quite astonishing.”

There was a consistent staff team and a key quality initiative of the service was staff being matched to people with the same interests to help build a positive relationship. This was central to the ethos of the service. A staff member said, “We always have time for clients.”

People told us that staff treated them with kindness and respect. It was clear from care and incident records that staff were vigilant in monitoring people’s moods and behaviours and provided care in accordance with people’s needs.

There were policies regarding equality and diversity. Care records contained information about people’s individual preferences and history which would include areas of cultural diversity and protected characteristics.

The service maintained effective systems to safeguard people from abuse and individual risk was fully assessed and reviewed. This included when people needed support with managing their medicines.

We saw evidence that the service learned from incidents and issues identified during audits. Records showed evidence of review by senior managers.

People’s needs were assessed and recorded by suitably qualified and experienced staff. Care and support were delivered in line with current legislation and best-practice.

The service ensured that staff were trained in appropriate subjects. This training was subject to regular review to ensure that staff were equipped to provide safe, effective care and support.

We saw clear evidence of staff working effectively to deliver positive outcomes for people. People reviewed were receiving effective care and gave positive feedback regarding staff support.

We saw evidence that the service worked effectively with other health and social care agencies to achieve better outcomes for people and improve quality and safety. The professional that we contacted did not express any concerns about the quality and effectiveness of these relationships. We saw evidence in care records of people being supported with input from community professionals such as occupational therapists and professionals from the palliative care team.

The service operated in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

We checked the records in relation to concerns and complaints. The complaints’ process was understood by the people that we spoke with. We saw evidence that complaints had been responded to in a professional and timely manner by the registered manager or a senior manager.

People spoke positively about the management of the service and the approachability of senior staff.

Home Instead Senior Care had well developed quality monitoring processes and the registered manager had support from other senior managers including a general manager. Policies and procedures provided guidance to staff regarding expectations and performance.

People using the service and staff were involved in discussions about the service and were asked to share their views. This was achieved through daily contact by the managers and surveys. The most recent survey yielded a very positive response.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

.