H O P E Superjobs Limited

¿ H O P E Superjobs Limited provides personal care to children and adults who live in their own homes. The service's office is based in Ilford, Redbridge. Care is provided in the London borough of Redbridge and other London boroughs.

¿ At the time of our inspection, 222 people used the service and there were 240 staff.

People's experience of using this service:

¿ People's needs were assessed before they started using the service and where risks were identified, there was guidance in place to manage them safely.

¿ People received person-centred care that reflected their assessed needs and preferences. Staff encouraged and promoted independence.

¿ People's privacy, dignity and independence was promoted. Staff understood equality and supported people’s diverse needs.

¿ People and their relatives told us the service was safe. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and what action they needed to take to keep people safe.

¿ Although the registered manager had made improvements to risk assessments, and reporting of incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns, the system could benefit from further improvements. We made a recommendation on risk assessment.

¿ Robust recruitment and assessment checks were completed before staff were employed.

¿ There were enough staff to provide care people needed.

¿ Staff told us they were supported by their line managers and they received suitable training to meet the needs of people using the service. Staff received regular one-to-one supervision and annual appraisals to enable them to assess their performance and training needs.

¿ Medicines were safely managed.

¿ Staff had knowledge and necessary equipment to reduce the risk of infections.

¿ People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services. Staff knew how and who to contact if people had emergency medical needs.

¿ Where required, staff supported people with their dietary needs and preferences.

¿ There was a clear management structure in place. This ensured that the service was well led.

¿ There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.

¿ Feedback from people and their relatives was requested and acted on.

¿ The service worked with other organisations and professionals to plan and deliver an effective service.

Rating at last inspection:

¿ At the last inspection the service was rated Requires Improvement (report published 13 March 2018)

Why we inspected:

¿ This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. We found the service had made improvements to meet the characteristics of Good in all areas.

Follow up:

¿ We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

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

Hope Super jobs Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to 250 people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and children.

Not everyone using Hope Super jobs service receives regulated activity; the 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 we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The children and people using the service have varying support needs, including physical disabilities, sensory impairments and dementia. People required varying levels of support, for example, some people required support once or twice a week, whilst others required more than one call a day and support from two carers.

The service has 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.

Staff supported children and people at home with their care needs and the service had assessed some risks. However, not all risks associated with children’s and people’s health care tasks had been assessed to ensure they were safe at all times when staff carried out personal care. Although people received their medicines, records maintained by the service were not always available, reviewed and appropriately maintained.

Staff were aware of the safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and knew how to report any concerns. However, the manager had not always submitted notifications about important events at the service to the Care Quality Commission, as required by law.

There were enough staff working at the service to meet people’s needs and robust staff recruitment procedures were in place. Staff had a good understanding about infection control and used protective clothing to help prevent the spread of infection.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service. Staff received training and supervision to support them, in their role. Where the service supported people with meal preparation they were able to choose what they ate and drank. People were supported to access relevant health care professionals and the service worked with other agencies to support people. People were able to make choices for themselves where they had the capacity to do so and the service operated in line the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People told us they were treated with respect and that staff were caring. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, independence and dignity.

Care plans were in place which set out how to meet people’s individual needs and these were regularly reviewed. However, the level of detail in some children’s/ people's care plans did not always reflect their specific needs and preferences. We have made a recommendation about updating the care plans. The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Staff and people spoke positively about the registered manager and senior staff. The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided through seeking people's feedback and carrying out spot checks.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided through seeking people's feedback and carrying out spot checks. The provider's quality assurance systems had identified the some of the current shortfalls in the service, and an action plan was in place to address these. However, improvements were needed to identify all of the issues raised in this report in order to make progress.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report . Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Over 90% of the people who completed the survey told us their care and support was either 'excellent' or 'good'. One person wrote, "the office staff and the care workers are friendly and actually care" and another person told us, "we have been with H O P E for many years. Our [relative] is really happy with the care workers and enjoys their company." Everyone said they were treated with respect and felt safe with their care workers. Two people told us they received a good service but thought the agency could improve how it communicated important information, for example, when a new care worker was being sent as their regular care worker was on sick leave.

We saw there were appropriate policies and practices for supporting people with their prescribed medicines.

The care workers we spoke with told us there were sufficient senior staff with suitable skills and knowledge to provide guidance and support.

We saw the provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people who used the service and to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

Records that demonstrated that people using the service had individual risk assessments and risk management plans. Each person had an individual care plan that was developed with them and their relatives, social services, the provider and any other relevant person.

Relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care that the person using the service had received. People using the service said that staff were "very helpful" and "responded quickly" to their needs.

Staff were familiar with policies on child protection and safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew who to contact in the event of concerns about a person's welfare.

Staff attended relevant training courses, were supervised regularly and appraised on their performance on an annual basis.

Written feedback from people using the service about the quality of care was regularly obtained. The feedback we saw was positive about the quality of care delivered.