We carried out a review of the data available to us about John Stanley Thurrock 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 John Stanley Thurrock, you can give feedback on this service.
John Stanley, Thurrock is a domiciliary care agency. The service provides a range of services, including personal care, medication support and meal preparation to both younger and older adults’ enabling them to remain as independent as possible whilst living in their own home.
Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, 280 people using the service received the regulated activity of personal care.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service continued to place the care needs of people at the centre of its values. People, relatives and professionals consistently described staff and the service as exceptionally compassionate and kind. Staff were encouraged to provide holistic care. They worked closely with people to put together a care plan that was person centred and achieved their desired outcomes. Staff knew people exceptionally well and expressed commitment to ensuring people received high-quality care. People were encouraged to maintain, and where possible, enhance their independence. We heard excellent examples of how staff had gone out of their way to provide care that enriched the lives of people using the service. Everyone we spoke with told us they would happily recommend the service to others.
People had confidence in the staff and felt safe in their care. Staff were well supported by the provider and had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. 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.
Medicines were managed safely. There was an open and transparent culture in relation to accidents and incidents and they were used as opportunities to learn and lessen risks.
The service was proactive in its response to concerns or complaints and people and relatives were given the opportunity to feedback their experiences.
The service was well led, and staff felt valued and well supported by the registered manager and the provider. There was an open and transparent culture which empowered people and staff to voice their opinions and focused on continuous improvement. Without exception, people and relatives told us the service was well-managed.
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 (published 13 September 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.
John Stanley Thurrock is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care for adults living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection care was being provided to 248 people.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
The service did not always have sufficient numbers of staff who were effectively deployed to meet people’s needs and not all people using the service received support from a consistent staff team. Staff understood the risks and signs of potential abuse and the relevant safeguarding processes to follow however the service had not submitted notifications relating to allegations of abuse to CQC in line with Regulations.
There were effective recruitment procedures in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify any trends and to mitigate reoccurrence. There were systems in place for the management of medicines.
Staff had received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care. Assessments of people’s capacity were carried out in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. Care plans were person centred, included information on people’s life histories, individual preferences and needs, and contained clear guidance for staff to follow. Care plans were regularly reviewed and people and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in the planning of their care.
Staff were kind and caring, treated people with respect and dignity and encouraged them to maintain their independence. The service worked with other professionals to ensure that people's health needs were met and, where appropriate, support and guidance was sought from health and social care professionals.
There were effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service to ensure the service was operating safely and was continually improving to meet people’s needs.
One person wrote, "My carer is very good, kind and helpful." One relative wrote, "They do their job very well and are always polite."
We found that the provider had arrangements for assessing and recording consent and people's capacity to consent.
We saw that people's care and treatment was planned and reviewed with the person who used the service and their relative's involvement. Risks to people's health, welfare and safety were identified and well managed. Our inspection showed us that the service was safe, responsive and caring.
We found that there were systems in place to ensure that cleanliness and infection control practices were good.
Staff were selected and recruited in a way that ensured they were suitably qualified and fit
for the job. There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service.
We found that there were systems in place to assess and improve the quality of service provision. There was an effective complaints process in place.
Records viewed showed that support plans covered all aspects of a person's individual circumstances. We spoke with four people who use the service and four relatives. In general people told us that they were happy with the care and support provided by staff from the care agency. Relatives told us that improvements were required by office staff to return telephone calls.
The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that staff were appropriately trained to meet their personal care needs and that staff were regularly supervised and appraised. Staff morale within the care agency was noted to be positive and staff told us that they received regular praise and recognition for the work they performed.