Archived: Leap Domiciliary Care

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection. We spoke to the manager who although is not yet registered had been leading the service since it began operating. We also spoke to the office manager, six people using the service, six staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that the managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to a disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's healthcare needs were assessed with them prior to their care package commencing. People's needs and wishes were listened to enabling them to make choices based on their personal needs and requirements. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs that had been identified were all taken into consideration. Equipment was sourced from appropriately trained professionals outside of the service. All people said they had been involved in writing their care plans and that they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'The staff are truly amazing, I don't know what I would do without them. They help me to look after my home which is really important to me'.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed two monthly satisfaction surveys. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these had been addressed in a timely fashion. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and care support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People who were able to do so regularly completed a range of normal activities inside and outside of their homes. Most people enjoyed going out and the service was able to provide support for them to achieve this where required.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No one we spoke to felt the need to make a complaint as they were very happy with the service they received. We looked at how concerns had been dealt with and found that the responses had been open, thorough and timely. People could therefore be assured that concerns raised were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

At the time of our visit, the agency provided personal care to 25 people in their own homes and employed 12 care workers. We visited the agency office and spoke with the manager, and looked at the agency's systems. We looked at three people's care records and six staff records.

We spoke with two care workers at the agency office and three care workers on the telephone. We visited two people who received a care service and spoke with two people and two relatives on the telephone. People told us they were very happy with the service. Comments included 'Outstanding!' 'They are on the ball' and 'We are absolutely delighted with the care.'

Where people needed assistance with their medicines records showed these had been administered safely.

We found the agency had robust recruitment systems in place. New staff were carefully checked before they began working. Staff described good systems of training and support. They told us they enjoyed their work.

The agency had improved their recording methods since our last inspection. Care plans were clear and easy to read and covered all aspects of each person's support needs. Risk assessments covered all recognised needs.

We spoke with five people and a relative and asked them about the care and treatment provided. Everyone we spoke with gave very positive feedback about the service provided. One person said, The agency offer that personal touch, you really feel they know you as a person, and know your needs'. Another person said,' They do everything well, staff are punctual, tidy in appearance and they care for me in a proper manner'. A third person said, 'They are like part of my family'.

The care plans we saw reflected the individual care needs described to us by people and staff we spoke with and showed the service supported people appropriately. However, we identified improvements were needed to some aspects record keeping. People were not fully protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. This was because risk assessment records had limited details about action staff should take to reduce any risks identified.