We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bury Home Care 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 Bury Home Care, you can give feedback on this service.
Bury Home Care also provides care and support when Suffolk County Council is unable to source another care provider.
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
The reablement ethos ran through the service with staff using their reablement skills whenever they provided care and support. Through effective reablement and close working with partners people were supported to achieve high reablement goals.
People received a safe service. Risks were assessed and mitigated by staff working with other healthcare professionals to promote positive risk taking in the reablement process.
Staff spoke highly about the training and support provided. They told us they felt valued and supported both to provide high quality care and with their own development which, in turn, resulted in outstanding support for people. They told us they were proud to work for an organisation that provided high quality care
The service had an open and caring culture. People told us how supportive and caring staff were towards them. This caring and open culture was reflected throughout the service by the way staff worked as a team and with other healthcare professionals.
A thorough assessment of people’s needs before they left hospital meant that they received care which effectively met their needs and enabled them to regain lost skills. This included the prompt supply of equipment facilitated by joint working between the service and the local CCG.
Care plans reflected people’s needs. They were constantly updated and adapted as people’s needs changed as their reablement progressed. This supported people to achieve ambitious reablement goals within a realistic time scale.
Through joint working with the local Clinical Commissioning Group the service had significantly reduced the amount time of between people being assessed as able to leave hospital and actually going home with the necessary support in place.
Staff and other healthcare professionals considered the service was exceptionally well run with a knowledgeable manager.
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.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good. (21 December 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.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Bury Home Care is a domiciliary care service that provide short-term re-enablement packages to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people using the service. The service shares a registered manager and additional resources with two other services in the area. When we last inspected this service in September 2014 we found that they were compliant in each of the areas inspected.
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.
The service promoted people’s safety through a robust approach to assessing risk, utilising assistive technology and equipping staff with the knowledge and resources to keep people safe. People received their calls within the specified times and the service made use of an innovative electronic monitoring system to manage the allocation of staff. The assessment and care planning process enabled staff to deliver consistent care to people, and their progress during their period of re-enablement was monitoring for successes or challenges. If people needed support taking medicines then these were administered by trained staff and accounted for appropriately by the service. People were supported to have their views and opinions heard and the service acted upon their feedback to improve their care. The outcomes for people using the service were positive and had assisted them to regain confidence, independence and mobility.
Staff received a broad range of high quality training to support them to undertake their duties effectively. New staff received a full induction into the service, and robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure they had the skills and experience necessary for the role. They received regular supervisions and performance reviews to support their continued development. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities, and were knowledgeable about the ways in which people gave consent, and how the Mental Capacity Act (2005) was applied in practice. All of the people we spoke with were emphatic about the caring and kind attitude of the staff and felt treated with dignity and respect. We were told of numerous examples of times where the care and support provided went the extra mile.
The management team promoted a culture of continual development and improvement, with robust quality assurance processes in place to identify ways in which people using the service could receive more responsive, effective care. The service worked closely with community healthcare professionals and social work teams to support people’s on-going health and well-being. Staff meetings were held each fortnight and provided an opportunity for the team to meet and discuss the on-going re-enablement of people using of the service.
Comments from relatives on the service provided said the agency staff were very supportive and encouraging. One person said, 'I had a different agency last year and they were terrible.' Another person said, 'They always ask my permission before doing anything in my home. They are polite and respectful. I cannot fault them.' We were told by seven people that staff were competent and capable of carrying out the care tasks required.
People we spoke with told us the staff washed their hands and used disposable gloves and aprons when carrying out care tasks. This ensured good infection control procedures were followed.
We looked at a variety of methods used by this agency that showed suitable procedures were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.
Records were up to date, suitable for use and stored securely when not in the person's own home.
We found that, on the whole, the service was meeting people's needs. People told us that, whilst carers were often late to arrive, this did not cause them huge concern as they realised that staff were busy. They told us that the majority of staff were very good, but that sometimes dignity was not a top priority. There was scope to ensure that all staff have been trained in respecting people's dignity. There was scope to improve the pre-assessment policy to ensure that people's preferences are known. We found some gaps in records, notably staff training and medication administration charts.