Precious Hope and Home Care Limited - Milton Keynes

People's experience of using this service and what we found

The care plan and risk assessments had not been fully developed to ensure safe care was consistently supplied. The compliance manager said this would be swiftly rectified.

Some policies and procedures were not detailed or clear such as when staff should contact outside agencies if no action has been taken if abuse has been suspected.

Staff had been safely recruited and had worked well as part of a small dedicated team.

The person had been protected from infection risks.

Medication was supplied to the person though it needed to be made fully clear as to what medicine was to be given and in what circumstances.

The person said they felt safe and cared for by friendly and caring staff supporting them. The management team had supplied training to ensure staff could meet the person's needs. Supervision was planned to support staff in the provision of quality care to the person.

The provider had developed systems to assess, monitor and evaluate people's care to provide consistent care to people using the service.

Staff had been supported in their roles by management.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

This service was registered with us in 2015 and this was the third inspection of the service.

Why we inspected

We undertook this focused inspection to check on specific concerns we had about the support people received.

CQC have introduced focused inspections to check specific concerns.

The service has not been rated at this inspection as we did not have enough evidence of the quality of personal care supplied to be able to do this.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At the time of the inspection, the service was providing ‘personal care’ to nine people using the service.

At our last inspection in January 2016, we rated the service ‘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 set out in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since the last inspection.

Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to drive continuous improvement of the service. The complaints policy was made available to people and relatives so they knew how to raise any concerns and complaints. The registered manager had responded to complaints; however records need to be more detailed to provide a clear audit trail of the actions taken.

People and relatives felt safe with the staff providing their care and support. Staff were aware of their responsibilities for keeping people safe from any form of abuse and avoidable harm. The registered manager understood their responsibilities to keep people safe, they had notified the local safeguarding authority and CQC of safeguarding concerns and carried out investigations as required.

Staff recruitment procedures ensured appropriate checks were carried out on new staff to ensure they were suitable to work at the service. The staffing arrangements met the individual dependency needs of people using the service.

Staff had the appropriate skills, competency and knowledge to meet people’s individual needs. Health and safety training followed current relevant national guidance to prevention and control of infection. One to one supervision was provided for staff to reflect on their practice and promote self-development.

People received their medicines safely and staff supported people to access support from healthcare professionals when required to ensure that people received coordinated care and support.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) legislation and followed this in practice.

People were involved in planning their on-going care and support. The care plans were person centred and provided staff with appropriate guidance.

People's needs and risks were assessed and staff were aware of the needs of each person. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect and provided care in keeping with their wishes and preferences.

The service notified the Care Quality Commission of events and incidents, as required by law. Internal audits continually monitored the quality of the service, based on the audit findings timely action was taken to drive continuous improvement of the service.

Precious Hope and Home Care Limited – Milton Keynes provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection we were informed that seven people were using the service.

The service did not have 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.

The registered manager for the service had resigned in December 2015 however they had yet to cancel their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The provider told us they had appointed a new manager for the service and they had taken up post in January 2016. The newly appointed manager had submitted the relevant documents to CQC to begin the registered manager application process.

Records in relation to complaints did not always fully evidence how the provider investigated complaints, the actions taken or whether complainants were kept informed of the outcome of complaints.

Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and what they needed to do to protect people from abuse.

Risks to individuals were identified and managed. The staff knew how to manage the risks to people using service.

Staffing arrangements ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs. The recruitment systems ensured that staff had the right mix of skills, knowledge and experience and were suitable to work with people using the service.

Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and where the service was responsible people were supported to take their medicines safely.

Staff received regular training which provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. They also received regular supervision and support from the provider.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing any care and support. They were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation.

Where the service was responsible, people were supported to have a balanced diet.

Staff met people’s day to day health needs and took appropriate action in response to changing health conditions.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their privacy was respected. The staff understood and promoted the principles of person centred care.

People’s needs were assessed and their care plans reflected how they wanted to receive their care and support. People using the service and/or their relatives were involved in care reviews.

Quality assurance systems were used to measure and review the delivery of care and identify areas for improvement.