Home Instead Canary Wharf

Updated 25 May 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 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.

The inspection took place on 7 and 8 March 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we needed to ensure somebody would be available to assist us with the inspection. This was a routine inspection as we had rated the service as ‘Good’ at the last inspection. We had not received any information of concern since the last inspection.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. Inspection site visit activity started on 7 March and ended on 21 March 2018. We visited the office location on 7 and 8 March 2018 to see the registered manager, office staff and to review care records and policies and procedures. After the site visit was complete we then made calls to people who used the service, their relatives, care workers and health and social care professionals, who were not present at the site visit.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information the CQC held about the service. This included notifications of significant incidents reported to the CQC and the previous inspection report. In addition to this we reviewed the 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 only managed to speak with three people who used the service as the remaining people were either unable to or found it difficult to speak over the phone. We contacted seven relatives and heard back from five of them. We also spoke with 11 staff members. This included the registered manager, the business development manager, the care supervisor and eight care workers. We looked at five people’s care plans, five staff recruitment files, staff training files, staff supervision records and audits and records related to the management of the service.

Following the inspection we contacted three health and social care professionals who worked with people using the service for their views and feedback but did not hear back from any of them.

Updated 25 May 2018

The service was exceptionally caring. People using the service and their relatives spoke extremely positively about the caring and compassionate nature of the staff. People felt that staff went above and beyond their expectations of care to meet their needs. Two hour minimum visits allowed people and their care workers the opportunity to develop highly positive and caring relationships that took into account people’s individual needs and interests. The additional time that was allocated made a positive difference to people’s lives.

The provider ensured care workers understood the effects of the ageing process and staff showed great compassion and empathy when understanding people’s needs and providing their care.

The service benefitted from outstanding leadership. People using the service and their relatives told us that the service was extremely well managed and praised the high level of care and support they received from the management team which improved their quality of life.

The management team and staff applied the provider’s vision of person centred care. People benefitted from motivated staff that were committed to their work and shared the provider’s values. Staff were extremely positive about the open and honest culture of the service and praised the level of support they received from the management team to carry out their responsibilities.

The management team were dedicated to provide a high quality service and worked in partnership with other organisations. The registered manager had been proactive in working to create a dementia friendly community and was involved in delivering information awareness sessions.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service and staff had a good understanding of how to identify and report any concerns. Staff were confident that any concerns would be investigated and dealt with.

Risks to people were identified during an initial assessment with detailed guidance and control measures in place to enable staff to support people safely.

People who required support with their medicines received them safely and all staff had completed assessments and training in the safe administration of medicines.

Robust staff recruitment processes were in place and staff underwent the necessary checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people using the service. People were assigned regular care workers to ensure consistent levels of care.

The management team understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and staff took the necessary action if they had concerns about people’s capacity.

Care workers received a comprehensive induction and training programme to support them in meeting people’s needs. They were introduced to people before starting work with them and shadowed more experienced staff before they started to deliver personal care. Staff felt supported and spoke positively about the content of training and supervision they received.

People’s nutritional needs were recorded in their care plans and staff were aware of the level of support required, with further guidance available for people who needed extra support. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being through access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, occupational therapists and the community mental health team.

Care was personalised to meet people’s individual needs and was reviewed if there were any significant changes. We saw evidence that people's views were sought and they were involved in the planning of their care. An initial needs assessment was completed from which care plans and risk assessments were developed.

People were provided with information on how to make a complaint and felt comfortable raising concerns if they needed to.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, understand the experiences of people who used the service and identify any concerns. The management team were committed to a culture of continual improvement within the service and felt fully supported by the provider.