Home Instead Senior Care - Milton Keynes

Updated 19 March 2019

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 16, 18, 21 and 22 January 2019 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available to meet with us. We visited the office location and people in their own homes on the 16 January, returned to the office on the 18 January and made telephone calls to people and their relatives on the 16, 21 and 22 January.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience for this inspection had experience of co-ordinating care services for relatives.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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. The provider completed and returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgments in this report.

We reviewed the information we held about the service, including statutory notifications that the provider had sent us. A statutory notification provides information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We contacted health and social care commissioners who place and monitor the care of people in receipt of domiciliary support. We also contacted Healthwatch England, the national consumer champion in health and social care, to identify if they had any information which may support our inspection.

We spoke with nine people who used the service and four people’s relatives. We also spoke with the provider, registered manager and deputy manager and nine members of staff including care staff, staff responsible for training and community networking staff. We looked at records relating to all aspects of the service including care, staffing, and quality assurance. We also looked at six people’s care records and five staff recruitment records.

Updated 19 March 2019

This announced inspection took place on 16, 18, 21 and 22 January 2019.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to adults. At the time of inspection, the provider was supporting 59 people with personal care.

Not everyone using Home Instead Senior Care – Milton Keynes may receive regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At the last inspection, on 27, 29 July and 1 August 2016, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of 'Good' and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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.

Home Instead Senior Care – Milton Keynes actively promoted a culture that encouraged staff to focus on people as individuals and treat them with kindness, dignity and respect.

The staff were very kind and caring and people’s relationships with staff had a hugely positive impact on their lives. People were supported by staff who were passionate about enabling people to live as independently as possible in their own homes. Staff continually strived to provide individualised person-centred care and ensured that people's privacy and dignity was protected.

People had control of their lives and were empowered to express their choices and wishes.

People were supported in a safe way. Staff understood the signs of abuse and the procedures they should follow to report abuse. People had risk assessments in place to cover any risks that were present within their lives, but also enabled them to be as independent as possible.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. Staffing deployment ensured continuity of care. Staffing planners showed that staffing was consistent.

There were safe systems in place for the administration of medicines and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff supported people in a way which prevented the spread of infection.

Staff attended induction training where they completed an in-depth training programme and had many opportunities to undertake further training. Staff were well supported by the registered manager and senior staff and had regular one to one supervisions.

Where needed staff supported people to have access to suitable food and drink. Staff supported people with health appointments when necessary. Health professionals were involved with people's care as and when required.

Care planning was personalised and considered people's likes and dislikes, so that staff understood their needs fully.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service had a complaints procedure in place. This ensured people and their relatives were able to provide feedback about their care to help the service make improvements where required.

Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and audits were taking place within the service to identify where improvements could be made. The provider needs to ensure that staff follow the policies and procedures in place for covert medicines and review of mental capacity assessments.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received the care they required. Communication was open and honest, and improvements were highlighted and worked upon as required.