We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lettershanner 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 Lettershanner, you can give feedback on this service.
Lettershanner is a small domiciliary care agency, who were providing support to three people at the time of inspection. Two of the people being supported, received support with personal care. 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 were protected from abuse by staff who had received appropriate training and had the confidence to report. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and measures were in place to mitigate the risk of harm. Staff were recruited following an assessment of their character, qualifications and experience.
Staff were trained to administer people’s medicine safely and protect people from infection, by using safe infection control procedures. The provider shared lessons learnt from other organisations with the staff team.
People’s needs were assessed, and outcomes were agreed as part of the care planning process. Staff received training relevant to their role and could request further training in supervision. Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and access healthcare services when necessary. The provider engaged with other agencies when the need arose.
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.
People were well treated by the staff team. People were supported to make their own decisions and had access to advocacy services. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People’s care plans were personalised to reflect their individual needs and interests. Accessible information was available to people and alternative formats had been created. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew how to access it.
The service was not currently supporting people with end of life care.
People were complimentary of the organisation and staff felt well supported. The provider understood their duty of candour and the regulatory requirements of their role. The provider carried out regular audits and spot checks as well as, requesting feedback on the care received. They also kept themselves updated with changes within the care sector and shared any relevant information.
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 10 June 2017).
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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated good; at this inspection we found the service remained good.
The provider also carried out the role of manager, as an individual they were not required to have a registered manager in post. As the registered person they have the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People received support from staff that understood how to keep them safe. Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse and ensure they were supported to manage any risks to their safety. Staff were safely recruited and there were sufficient staff to ensure people received support at the times that suited them and from a consistent staff team. People received prompts to take medicines and where required support from competent staff.
People received support from staff that were skilled and had received training in how to support people safely. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff understood how to support people with maintaining a healthy diet and monitoring their health.
People told us staff were caring and they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff demonstrated how they would ensure people received the care and support they needed whilst ensuring they had offered people a choice and allowed them to maintain their independence.
People told us the service responded to their needs and preferences. Staff were aware of what people liked and disliked and could describe how people’s needs were met. People’s needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed regularly. We could see there was a system in place to manage any complaints about the service.
The provider ensured they were accessible to people, relatives and staff. The provider was providing support to staff and ensuring a positive culture was maintained. Quality checks were carried out and people received and feedback was used to drive improvements.
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, and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
The inspection was announced with short notice.
The provider offers personal care and support to people in their own homes in the Telford, Bridgnorth and surrounding areas. Six people used the service at the time of our inspection. There was a registered manager at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
People who used the service were encouraged to retain their independence. People agreed to the level of support they needed and how they wished to be supported before the service commenced. Where people's needs changed, the provider responded well and reviewed the care provided which ensured people were safe. This meant people received care that meets their needs.
We saw staffing was managed flexibly to suit people's needs. This meant people received their care when they needed it. Where people had healthcare appointments the registered manager provided flexible support which enabled people to attend their commitments.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received. They felt staff were kind and caring, and had the knowledge and skills to support them. People spoke positively about the care they received in their homes. Everyone we spoke with told us they would recommend the service.
There were clear management structures which offered leadership, support and guidance to staff in order that they could do their job well and support people.
People told us they were consulted about their views on the service by means of an annual survey and individual care reviews. This meant that the provider ensured that the service was monitored and improvements made where necessary.