15 September 2014
During a routine inspection
During the inspection we looked at respect and involvement, care and welfare, safeguarding, supporting workers and quality assurance.
This is a summary of what we found, using evidence obtained via speaking with staff, speaking with people who used the service and looking at records:
Is the service caring?
We spoke with six members of staff who all demonstrated a commitment to delivering good quality care and preserving people's dignity and privacy. Care records included evidence of individual support needs, appropriate risk assessments and personal preferences.
We spoke with five people who used the service. One person said, 'She (the carer) is lovely. I have her every day. As well as a carer she is a friend to me. I have no complaints'. Another told us, 'I have no complaints about them at all, I am happy with them. I class X (carer) as a friend'. Another commented, 'Before they go they always ask if there's anything else I want them to do. It's up to me. They always wear uniform and use gloves'.
One of the relatives commented, 'We've got quite friendly with them now. They seem well trained'. Another said, 'They ask what we would like them to do. They are all really pleasant and chatty and cheery'.
Is the service responsive?
People were visited prior to the commencement of the service to ascertain their individual needs and wishes. People's mental capacity was taken into consideration with regard to decision making and care was taken to ensure decisions were made in the person's best interests. Staff had undertaken Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) training and demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of the Act.
There was evidence within the care records that the service responded to people's changing needs and updated the support plans appropriately.
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments were in place in the care records and were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure people's needs were met safely.
Staff were aware of the safeguarding policies and guidance and were confident to follow them. We saw evidence that the service followed up safeguarding concerns appropriately.
Staff were recruited safely and efforts were made to ensure their suitability to work with vulnerable people, such as Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks being carried out. Staff were well supported in their roles and felt confident to discuss any issues or concerns with management.
Is the service effective?
We spoke with six staff members who demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities.
Feedback from questionnaires indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service delivery.
We spoke with five people who used the service and two relatives. They were happy with the service delivery and felt they were given choices, involved in the process and able to contribute to the support plan.
Is the service well-led?
There was a registered manager in place who was appropriately registered with CQC.
Staff had regular supervision and appraisals and were supported to raise any issues or concerns at any time. Staff meetings were held on a regular basis and regular updates and information given to staff via newsletters.
The quality assurance systems in evidence demonstrated a significant amount of monitoring, analysis and appropriate response to any shortfalls identified.