Tavy Care Services

Updated 27 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 was a comprehensive inspection carried out by one adult social care inspector. .

The announced inspection took place on 11 October 2018 and 12 October 2018. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure we could meet the registered manager and key staff. It also allowed us to arrange to talk to people who received a service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 looked at the information in the PIR and also looked at other information we held about the service. Before the inspection we sent questionnaires to people using the service, their relatives and staff. We received 18 responses from people using the service, 12 responses from staff, 4 responses from relatives and one reply from a health professional.

We visited three people who received a service. We spoke with three relatives, six staff and the director and registered manager.

We looked at records related to people’s individual care and the running of the service. Records seen included three care and support plans, details of people’s visits and quality audit phone calls. Three recruitment files, supervision records, minutes of meetings and the staff training matrix provided evidence of staff management.

Updated 27 November 2018

The announced inspection took place on 11 October 2018 and 12 October 2018. We announced our intention to inspect the domiciliary service so we could be sure the registered manager, staff and people receiving a service were available to talk to us.

Tavy Care Services is a care service registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes (domiciliary care). The service specialises in providing support to people in the local community who live in and around the town of Tavistock. At the time of our inspection 60 people were receiving support from the service. Most people were receiving personal care. Some of these people also received help with cleaning or shopping. This part of the service is not regulated by us and was not part of this inspection. The majority of people received regular short support visits at a time to suit them.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

We found the Caring domain to be Outstanding. People were always treated with kindness, respect and compassion. The registered manager led a team of staff that were highly motivated to offer care that was exceptionally compassionate and kind to people receiving support and their families.

There was evidence of a strong, person centred culture. People were given every opportunity to express their wishes regarding their care and support and how they were feeling at that particular time. If there was anything the care staff could do to improve the person’s well-being this was done. The registered manager stressed the importance of getting to know the person and understanding what was important to them.

There were many examples of the empathy staff had with people and the action they took as a result. They changed rotas so they could eat their lunch with people who were alone. Staff asked to have calls put at the end of their working day so they could spend extra time with them to share their interests or complete additional tasks.

People received care that was responsive to their needs because all staff involved in the service understood the importance of knowing people well and continually checking that the support they were providing continued to be what the person required.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. One person told us they had complete confidence in the service. “They are very good. It is a professional service but they keep me cheerful too.”

People received the care they needed to keep them safe in their own homes. They told us about the arrangements in place to enable staff to enter their homes safely and with regard to their privacy and independence.

The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe and minimise the risk of abuse. Potential new staff were thoroughly checked to make sure they were suitable to work with people in their own home. New staff were able to shadow experienced staff and did not complete visits to people alone until they felt confident.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of regular staff to meet their needs. People received reliable support from a team they knew. Staff arrived on time and did not let people down.

People were assessed to establish whether they needed or required assistance with medicines. Staff understood the varying levels of assistance that could be offered to people and the importance of clearly recording any medications they prompted or administered to people.

People received effective support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. People and their relatives felt confident that staff were trained and competent to deliver the range of care and support required.

People were supported to see healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. If they became unwell staff would contact family members or were able to call a doctor. Staff worked closely with community nurses to meet people’s needs.

People only received care and support with their consent. Staff told us they always checked when entering people’s homes that they wanted care and support that day. They understood people were able to refuse or vary the support they required according to their wishes.

People received a range of services according to their assessed needs and personal preferences. People could choose how much care they required. Some people received two visits weekly to assist with a shower. Other people required several visits a day from two staff to enable them to stay safely in their own homes. Staff knew people and if they were unwell or if a family member was away additional visits could be made on a short term basis.

The service was well led by the registered manager and management team. As the service had expanded the registered manager had appointed senior staff who supported their beliefs and values and put people receiving a service firmly at the centre of all they did. They listened to people and took action to ensure the service people received was reliable, flexible and caring.