Archived: Home Instead Senior Care

Is the service safe?

Care records contained detailed risk assessments. Actions to minimise the risks identified were documented in people's plan of care. Risk assessments balanced risk, with the rights of people to make choices. People told us that actions to reduce risks were made in a way not to compromise their independence.

Before people received any care they were asked for their consent. People told us that they understood they could change their mind at any time. People received their care from care workers who had participated in an introductory visit with a care supervisor. Staff were clear about their role and responsibilities in relation to consent. Care records were clear about people's ability to consent for themselves. Where appropriate, 'mental capacity' assessments had been carried out. Staff had received training about the 'Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Recruitment and selection policies and processes were robust. All staff had had relevant checks on their suitability for the role prior to starting work.

Staff received regular supervision including observation of care being delivered.

Staff had received training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and were clear about their role and responsibilities. People told us they felt safe when the care workers were in their home.

Is the service effective?

Care records were well written and reflected the needs and wishes of the people who received a service. People told us they were fully involved in developing their care plans. Daily records demonstrated that care staff delivered care in line with the care plan. These records were audited by care supervisors monthly. Care plans contained sufficient information for staff to carry out the care required.

Staff told us they received updates, information and guidance aimed at improving care. We saw that training programmes were comprehensive and staff had good access to training. Minutes of staff meetings and copies of emails to staff demonstrated that incidents, complaints and feedback were discussed. Any appropriate lessons were learned and necessary actions were monitored through supervision.

Is the service caring?

We talked with five people and the representatives of seven others who used the service. All the people we spoke with said the service was very good. People we spoke with described the service as, 'Polite, caring and warm', Flexible and receptive' and 'Just perfect'. One family member told us: 'The agency cared about (name) in the same way I would'. Two people told us that they had recommended the provider to other people.

People we spoke with told us that they particularly liked the fact that they were 'matched' with their care workers. One person told us that they were matched with care workers who had the same interests and outlook on life as they did. People told us they enjoyed the consistency of a small group of care workers delivering their care.

People who received a service and their relatives had the opportunity to complete an annual survey. Feedback from the survey and reviews were generally very positive.

Is the service responsive?

All the people we spoke with said that they had been asked for their views about the service they received. Minutes of staff meetings and supervision notes demonstrated that actions were discussed and monitored. People were aware how to raise an issue or make a complaint. People told us that any issues they raised were resolved swiftly.

Policies and procedures were up to date and reflected national legislation and guidance.

Is the service well-led?

All the staff we spoke with said they enjoyed their jobs. They told us they felt well supported by their care supervisors and the registered manager. Staff told us that the system of matching people to care workers worked exceptionally well.

The provider employed a full time trainer. Staff had good access to a wide range of training relevant to their role. Training programmes were based on current research and guidelines. All staff received a comprehensive induction programme prior to working alone.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. These included an analysis of incidents and complaints, audits, satisfaction surveys and supervision visits to observe care staff delivering care. If shortfalls were identified there was a process in place to improve the service.

People told us they were listened to and staff treated them with kindness and respect. One person who used the service told us: 'The staff are first class! They always give me enough time and don't rush me. They make me feel really comfortable'. Another person said: 'They always listen to me and ask me before they do anything. They are very respectful'.

We saw that people had an assessment of their needs completed before they received the service. We found that people who used the service or their relatives were involved in all aspects of the care they received.

We found that staff understood the signs of abuse and how to report any suspicions of abuse.

We saw that staff were trained and appropriately supervised to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

There were robust quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service which people received.

People were able to express their views and these were taken into account in the way the service was provided. People who used the service told us, 'They are brilliant ' nothing is too much trouble for them'.

People had an assessment of their needs which included all aspects of daily living.

People were protected from abuse and staff understood the signs of abuse and how to report any suspicions of abuse.

People who used the service received care and support from staff that were properly trained, supervised and appraised. A relative of a person who used the service said, 'I am really impressed with them'.

Appropriate systems were in place to enable the quality of the service to be monitored on a regular basis.