Pendrea Home Care

Pendrea Home Care provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults in the Bodmin, Wadebridge, St Austell and Bude areas of Cornwall. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and support with meals. At the time of our inspection 60 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately, through Cornwall Council or NHS funding.

People, and their relatives, told us they were happy with the care they received and believed it was a safe service. Staff treated people respectfully and asked people how they wanted their care and support to be provided. People and their relatives commented, “It makes me feel safe because of their kindness”, “I am pleased with the care my husband has” and “The care is very good, they really look after me.”

The management team ensured there were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs by monitoring the care packages being delivered and only taking on new packages when enough suitably qualified staff were available. Staff rotas were planned in advance and staff were matched to the needs of the people using the service. People told us they received a reliable service and had regular staff who visited them. People had agreed the times of their visits and were kept informed of any changes. No one reported ever having had any missed visits. People told us, “It is a very reliable and good service”, “They are always on time” and “They always phone if they are going to be late.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. People who needed help taking their medicines were appropriately supported by staff. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.

Care plans provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs and wishes. These care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff. Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person.

People’s rights were protected by staff who under stood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how this applied to their role. Nobody we spoke with said they felt they had been subject to any discriminatory practice for example on the grounds of their gender, race, sexuality, disability or age.

At the last inspection we found that recruitment checks on new staff were not always thorough or completed before new staff started to provide care for people. At this inspection the necessary improvements had been made and appropriate checks had been completed, before staff were employed, to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Training records showed staff had been provided with all the necessary training which had been refreshed regularly. Staff told us they had “lots of training” and found the training to be beneficial to their role. Staff said they were encouraged to attend training to develop their skills, and their career. Staff completed a thorough induction programme prior to providing people's care. The Induction of new members of staff was effective and fully complied with the requirements of the Care Certificate.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and were well supported through supervision, appraisals and training. In addition ‘spot checks’ by management were completed regularly to help ensure each member of staff was providing appropriate standards of care and support. Staff were complimentary about the management team and how they were supported to carry out their work. The management team were also clearly committed to providing a good service for people. Comments from staff included, “Pendrea is an amazing company to work for and you are given the opportunity to progress” and “You can speak with the manager anytime and the seniors are amazing. You get 100% support” and “You always feel you can speak with the manager.”

There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to seek people's views about the service. This helped the management team to be aware of any areas where improvements could be made and implement changes when necessary. The management welcomed feedback and used the results of surveys and any complaints to drive improvement. People told us they were regularly asked for their views about the quality of the service they received. People had details of how to raise a complaint and told us they would be happy to make a complaint if they needed to.

This is a summary of what we found

Is the service safe?

We spoke with some people who used the care agency. They told us they felt safe when staff entered their home.

People were confident that if they were concerned they would speak with the manager or office staff. One person told us, 'I'm quite happy, if I wasn't I would complain'.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). We saw from the providers training records that staff had completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training which incorporated training relating to DoLs.

We found that people's care plans identified risks associated with their care. Risk assessments support staff to reduce and prevent a risk to the person or to themselves.

Is the service effective?

The care agency provided care and support to people in their own home, to enable a person to remain as independent as possible. People who used the care agency were complementary of the care provided by staff. People told us, 'I am completely helpless, they do everything for me' and 'very good indeed, I couldn't do without them'.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people who used the care agency and asked them if they felt staff were caring. People told us, 'they [staff] are very respectful', 'very good indeed, I couldn't do without them' and 'I think they're very good'.

We spoke with staff who appeared to enjoy their job, and explained to us how they supported people and how they knew what people's care needs were.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the care agency told us, 'they remind me of things to do' and 'when I ask them they're quite happy to do it, they do anything I ask them to do'.

We found care records and risk assessments were reflective of people's care needs.

We found policies and procedures were not always up to date or reflective of current practice.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. People who used the care agency were complementary of the manager.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt the managers were supportive and that they could speak with them at any time. We found the manager and provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.

During our inspection, we spoke with the director, manager, two care staff and the administrator. They demonstrated a good knowledge of the care needs of people who received a service and they spoke fondly of each person.

We found peoples' views and experiences had been taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse happening.

We saw there were appropriate checks undertaken before staff commenced work for the service.

Staff were supported because they received training and regular supervision and appraisal.

People that used the service told us they had confidence in the agency, and without exception, all the comments received were positive. Comments included 'no complaints, I am very content and cannot find fault with anything', 'really excellent care', and 'It is good to be able to stay independent at the same time as being looked after'.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People were not always protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

People were not protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment.

People were not always cared for by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

People were cared for by staff who were not always supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment arising from a lack of proper information