We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodford Homecare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Woodford Homecare, you can give feedback on this service.
Woodford Homecare is domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 55 people using the service; many of whom were older people living with dementia.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
While the provider had developed high quality systems and processes; they had not always ensured these systems were followed. Quality assurance systems were not effective in identifying where systems and processes had not been followed. The provider took steps to address the concerns raised within 24 hours of the inspection.
People were protected from the risk of harm including potential abuse. Risks to people from potential accident, injury and health concerns were managed effectively. People received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff. The provider had developed high quality values based recruitment practices. The provider had also invested in good quality training and induction programmes. They were committed to ensuring the staff team had the skills required to support people effectively.
People’s needs were assessed effectively; including any personal goals or outcomes they wanted to work towards. The provider ensured people’s care was delivered in line with current guidelines and legislation. People were supported to live their day to day lives as healthily as possible. People were supported to gain access to healthcare professionals in a timely way.
People were supported by a staff team who were committed to providing high quality, person-centred care. Care staff were kind and caring towards people and promoted their dignity and independence. People received support based on their individuals needs and preferences. People were fully involved in developing their care and support packages.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider had developed an open, honest and transparent culture within the service. People were able to raise complaints and concerns if needed and the provider actively sought people’s feedback about the service. The provider was committed to continually developing the service and making ongoing improvements to ensure people received high quality care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published 13 October 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service is registered to provide personal care and support to people in their own homes. The service provides support to younger and older people. At the time of the inspection the service was providing support and personal care to 38 people in their own homes.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
We last inspected this service on 24 September 2014. At that inspection we saw that the service was meeting all the regulations we assessed.
The culture of the service was to promote people’s wellbeing whilst providing personalised care and support. People were supported to take risks in their daily living and achieve their short, medium and long term goals.
People were fully involved in the development of their care plans to ensure that care staff knew how to support them in the way they wanted to be supported. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes, their physical, social and cultural needs, what was important to them and how to support them the way they wanted to be supported. People’s care needs were regularly reviewed and staff made aware of any changes in their care needs immediately.
People were supported by staff who received a comprehensive induction and were well trained. Systems were in place to ensure staff had the most up to date skills they needed to meet the individual needs of the people they supported. Additional training was identified and sought in line with people’s individual care needs and every effort was made to ensure staff were supported in their learning. There was a culture of supporting staff to learn in order to provide a quality service.
People were supported by care staff who had received training in how to recognise possible signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff were fully aware of their responsibilities in this area and what actions they should take to keep people safe from harm.
People were protected from harm because there were systems in place to identify and manage risks associated with their needs. A risk rating system was in place to assess the risks to people on a daily basis and staff were informed immediately of any changes in peoples’ care needs. For those people who were supported to take their medicines, systems were in place to ensure this was done safely and effectively.
The comprehensive recruitment process in place ensured people were supported by staff who were recruited safely and who had the values that represented the ethos of the service, which was to employ caring and compassionate people who were passionate about providing good care.
People benefitted from being supported by the same consistent staff group, who had been matched with them, and shared similar values and interests.
People were supported by staff who were aware of their health care needs and worked effectively with other agencies to their health and wellbeing. The service actively worked to support other agencies to find solutions to problems in order to assist people in their daily lives.
People and their relatives were complimentary about the staff who supported them, describing them as ‘kind’, ‘caring’, ‘thoughtful’ and ‘supportive’. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and were respectful when supporting them with their needs. Staff went above and beyond when supporting people.
There was a system in place for investigating and recording complaints and people were confident that if they did have any concerns, that they would be dealt with appropriately.
People were happy to recommend the service to others, based on their own positive experiences.
Staff felt listened to and well supported in their role and told us they were proud to work for the service. They enjoyed their work and were encouraged to support and complement one another in their work. There was an emphasis on staff supporting one another and acknowledging individual achievements in learning and supporting others.
Efforts were regularly made to obtain feedback from both people who used the service and staff in order to improve the quality of care provided. Regular audits took place and where any errors were highlighted, they were acted on immediately lessons were learnt. There was a strong emphasis on continual improvement and striving to provide a quality service in order to support people to live healthy, interesting and independent lives.
We spoke with nine people who used the service, four relatives and five staff on the telephone following our inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people told us, the records we looked at and what staff told us. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel perfectly safe." Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.
Staff knew about risk management plans and told us they supported people in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.
The provider had appropriate systems in place to ensure people received their prescribed medicines in a safe way.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.
Is the service effective?
People's care needs were assessed with them. We saw evidence that people were involved in their care planning and reviews by using communication methods that met their needs. We saw care plans were regularly updated.
Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by staff.
People received their medicines at the times they were prescribed in order to ensure they were effective.
Staff had been trained to meet the specific care needs of the people they supported.
Is the service caring?
People told us they were supported by staff that were kind and caring. One person told us, "The staff are lovely people."
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and people told us care and support was provided in accordance with their wishes.
Is the service responsive?
Where the support was required, people were facilitated to engage in community activities.
People were asked their views about the service using appropriate communication methods and the provider acted on comments that people made.
Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this. We found staff discussed people's care needs with them on a regular basis.
Is the service well led?
The provider had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. We found the service manager checked that risks were managed effectively
The provider sought the views of people who used the service. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed where they had been identified.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood the quality assurance and risk management systems. This helped to ensure people received a good quality of care.
Staff told us the service was well organised and they felt supported by their managers.