We carried out a review of the data available to us about Homebird Care Head Office 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 Homebird Care Head Office, you can give feedback on this service.
Homebird Care Ltd is a domiciliary care service which delivers personal care to people living in their own homes as part of a supportive living model, specialising in supporting people living with a learning disability and mental health conditions. The provider had expanded and had recently moved headquarters to 29 Hope St, whilst still keeping 88 Beech Lane as the location. We attended 29 Hope St for the purpose of the inspection, at the request of the registered manager. The registered office is based in Liverpool city centre in well equipped offices above a community hub. At the time of our inspection, 19 people were receiving services based across six houses. 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
People we spoke with told us the service was safe. The service had policies and procedures around safeguarding, whistleblowing and discrimination. Staff told us they received safeguarding training and knew who to inform if they had any concerns. People’s care and support was assessed before they started to receive care from the service. The service had sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and where possible people were supported by regular staff team who knew people well. Medicines were managed safely. Safe infection control practices were in place.
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. One person had a Court of Protection in place and staff were aware of what this meant. People were asked for consent before care was offered. Peoples confidential information was kept secure. Staff worked closely with other professionals to support people using the service. Staff had received an induction and training was ongoing. Staff reported, and records confirmed regular supervision and appraisals were taking place.
People told us they were treated with kindness and were positive about the staff’s attitude. People said, “I couldn’t ask for better staff.” People were involved in their care plans and review meetings where they wanted to be. Advocacy services were highlighted in homes and people’s privacy, dignity and independence were supported by the service.
People received person centred care and support from staff who knew people well. People’s communication needs had been assessed and staff knew how best to communicate to people. People were involved in social and leisure time and there was a range of activities available. People knew who to raise a concern and the service had policies and procedure in place.
The service had an experienced registered manager in post and there was a clear organisational structure. Audits were taking place in a variety of different areas to support the quality of the service. The service engaged with people and staff through regular house meeting, questionnaires and team meetings. We saw partnership working with health and social care professionals which supported peoples needs.
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 25 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.
Homebird care Ltd is a domiciliary care service, which delivers personal care to people in their own homes as part of a supported living model, particularly specialising in supporting people living with mental health conditions. The registered office is situated in Aigburth, Liverpool.
At the time of our inspection 14 people were receiving services based across five houses and the service employed 30 staff.
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.
People who used the service told us they felt safe because they knew the staff and managers well.
Staff were able to describe what action they would take if they felt someone was being abused or disclosed abuse to them. The people using the service told us they could approach the managers of the service if they felt they needed to discuss any safeguarding concerns.
People told us and rotas evidenced that there was enough staff on duty and employed by the service to be able to keep people safe. The service had an electronic rota system which ‘logged’ staff in when they came on shift.
Risk assessments were detailed and referenced specific areas of risk complete with management plans to help the staff to support that person.
People received their medicines as prescribed and safe practices had been followed in the administration and recording of medicines.
Staff were supervised regularly and had an annual appraisal. Staff training was in date and covered a wide range of topics in accordance with the provider’s training policy. We saw that new staff were inducted appropriately and inductions were in line with The Care Certificate.
Staff were recruited safely and checks were carried out on staff before they started work at the service to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
The registered manager and staff we spoke with were aware of their roles in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation.
Consent was well documented in people’s care plans for individual tasks and this was signed by the people themselves.
People had access to medical professionals such as GP’s, CPN’s opticians and chiropodists when they needed them. Staff had recorded the outcomes of these visits in people’s care plans.
People were supported to do their weekly shopping and staff ensured people had balanced meals and ate a varied diet.
Staff were able to demonstrate that they knew people well, and people were complimentary about the staff team.
Staff and people using the service were able to give examples of how people’s diversity and choices were respected.
Care plans contained person centred information about the individual.
There was a complaints procedure in place, and people told us they would have no problem raising a complaint if they needed to. There were no complaints to view.
People and staff were complimentary about the registered manger and the provider in general, and said they would recommend working for the company.
Staff were aware of the provider’s whistleblowing policy and told us they would not hesitate to report any concerns or bad practice.
Systems were in place to monitor the standard of the service and drive forward improvements. This included a number of audits for different areas such as health and safety, medication, care planning and training. There were clear and transparent action plans when the audit process identified areas of improvement.