Home Instead

Updated 24 January 2017

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 22 November 2016 .The service was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection in accordance with our current methodology for the inspection of domiciliary care agencies. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. We looked at previous inspection reports and other information we held about the service before we visited. Further information was gathered following the inspection with links with the registered manager and provider to supply additional evidence to support the outcomes of the inspection.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we met and visited four people in their own homes and spoke with two relatives. We contacted four people who were using the service by telephone and three further members of staff to discuss their experience of using the service. Questionnaires were sent out before the inspection. Eight people, 6 relatives, 14 members of staff and four community professionals shared their experiences of using or working with the service.

Updated 24 January 2017

This inspection was announced and took place on 22 November 2016. We gave the provider short notice of the inspection as we needed to make sure we were able to meet with the registered manager, access records and gain permission from people who used the agency to telephone them.

The last inspection of the service was carried out on 3 February 2014. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support for 180 people in their own homes.

Home Instead Senior Care Epsom is a Domiciliary Care service, which operates from offices in Epsom, Surrey. They provide supportive care and companionship to older people within the Epsom and Mole Valley areas. The service calls their care workers ‘caregivers’ which is the name they are referred to throughout this report. We also refer to other staff by title or staff.

There is 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.

The providers of the agency were also the directors of the company with overall responsibility for the service. The providers worked together to co-ordinate the day-to-day running of the service. They worked together when recruiting new staff and making decisions about taking on new work and the future plans and development of the service. The service had a clear vision and set of values. These were understood and put into practice.

The service demonstrated a very strong and visible person centred culture and they were committed to providing a service which put people at the heart of everything they did. People were kept informed about any development within the service by regular contact with the management team. The providers were involved in the local community and worked alongside other professionals, putting people at the heart of the service

Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed to make sure that all staff were of good character and suitable for the roles they performed. The provider told us they ensured the “right people” who had empathy, and a desire to make a real difference to people’s lives, were recruited. Staff told us they received a comprehensive induction, and were not allowed to start work until all checks had been completed.

Staff spoke highly of the support they received from the providers and management team and were confident they could raise any issues or concerns, knowing they would be listened to and acted upon. The strength of leadership throughout the service contributed to the outstanding level of care, attitude of staff and quality of life for people using the service. Staff were dedicated and knew what was expected of them, feeling privileged to be able to care for people and to support them to remain independent in their own homes.

Each person had their needs assessed before they started to use the agency. This was to make sure the agency was appropriate to meet the person’s needs and expectations. The assessments gave details about the assistance the person required and how and when they wished to be supported. Following a successful induction period caregivers were matched with people with similar interests.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the quality of the service provided, the management and staff team. They felt they were matched by similar interest with their caregiver and the companionship and care was exceptionally good. People received companionship care, which meant caregivers stayed for a minimum period of two hour visits. If people wanted support for fewer hours the provider and registered manager signposted them to other agencies or resources within the local area.

Care was planned and delivered in a way that was personalised to each person. Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and, where changes in needs were identified, care was adjusted to make sure people continued to receive care which met their needs and supported their independence.

Systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were aware of different types of abuse, what constituted poor practice and the correct action to take if abuse was suspected. Risk assessments included risks associated with people’s homes and risks to the person using the service.

People received help with their medicines from staff who were trained to safely support them and

Make sure they had their medicine when they needed it. The provider undertook regular competency checks on staff to ensure they followed safe practice when supporting people.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and understand the experiences of people who used the service. The providers had a clear vision, which was to provide a service which was influenced by the needs and wishes of the people who used it. They told us, “Home Instead provides companionship led care to hundreds of vulnerable people in the Epsom and Mole Valley area. This is more than just a business; we want to change the face of care in our community”. There was a commitment to providing high quality care which was tailored to people’s individual wishes. Their vision and values were communicated to staff through staff meetings, supervisions and a regular newsletter. People’s views were gathered by regular monitoring visits and phone calls and by satisfaction survey.