We carried out a review of the data available to us about Right at Home - Camberley, Ascot and Woking on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Right at Home - Camberley, Ascot and Woking, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service was extremely responsive to people’s needs. The personalised support provided by the agency consistently enabled people to achieve positive outcomes, often exceeding their expectations. Staff had supported people to overcome social isolation and to make progress in their rehabilitation after injury. People had been encouraged and supported to rediscover interests they had not had opportunities to take part in for some years. Staff had attended specialist training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people with complex healthcare conditions.
People highlighted the responsiveness and flexibility of the service as its greatest strengths. They told us the agency accommodated any requests to change their support arrangements, which enabled them to live their lives as they chose.
Relatives said the agency had supported people and their families if an emergency occurred. For example, the agency had immediately provided additional visits when people’s family carers had been unable to provide their care.
People and relatives told us that staff frequently went beyond what was expected of them in terms of the support they provided. For example, relatives told us that staff collected their family member’s shopping and laundry on their way to their care visits.
People’s care was provided by regular staff who understood their needs and preferences. Staff were kind and caring and had developed positive relationships with the people they supported. People were treated as individuals and their rights and wishes were respected. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their privacy and dignity when providing their care. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence.
People were involved in planning their care to ensure their care plans reflected their individual needs and preferences. Staff always received enough information about people’s needs and were introduced to people before they provided their care.
The agency had effective quality monitoring systems, which ensured that people received safe, consistent and well-planned care. Regular spot checks were carried out to observe staff practice. Staff competency in medicines management and moving and handling was observed and assessed regularly. Staff were well-supported and valued by the management team. All staff met regularly with their line managers for one-to-one supervision, which enabled them to discuss their performance.
People were encouraged to give their views about the care they received. The agency contacted people regularly to ask for feedback and were able to give their views in annual satisfaction surveys. People told us the agency had always responded to any requests they made for changes.
Staff monitored people’s health closely and reported any concerns promptly. Many relatives told us staff were good at identifying and reporting any changes to their family member’s health or well-being. Staff worked effectively with other professionals, such as GPs, district nurses and occupational therapists, to ensure people received the care they needed.
Potential risks to people and staff were identified and mitigated. Medicines were managed safely. Staff helped people keep their homes clean and maintained appropriate standards of infection control.
Staff were recruited safely. Checks were carried out to ensure staff were of good character and suitable to work in health and social care. Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report any concerns they had about people’s safety or well-being.
The service met the characteristics of Good in four of the five domains and the characteristics of Outstanding in the Responsive domain; more information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated Good at the last inspection on 18 April 2016.
Why we inspected:
This was a scheduled inspection based on the rating awarded at the previous inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service through notifications and communication with partner agencies such as local authorities and other commissioners. We will inspect the service again according to the rating achieved at this inspection unless we receive information of concern, in which case we may bring the next inspection forward.
Right At Home Care provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service provided personal care to 16 older people at the time of our inspection, some of whom were living with dementia.
The service is owned and operated by Mr Robert Thornton, who is the registered provider. Mr Thornton is referred to in this report as ‘the provider’. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe when staff provided their care. They told us they could rely on their care workers. People said their care workers had never missed a visit and the agency contacted them to let them know if a care worker was running late. The provider had identified those people most at risk if their care was interrupted and had developed plans to prioritise the delivery of their care in the event of an emergency.
Staff received training in safeguarding and recognising the signs of abuse. They knew about their responsibilities if they suspected abuse and how to report their concerns. The registered manager had carried out risk assessments to ensure that people receiving care and the staff supporting them were kept safe. Where an incident or accident had occurred, there was a record of how the event had occurred and what action could be taken to be taken to prevent a recurrence. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out pre-employment checks to ensure they employed suitable people to work at the agency.
People received their care from regular care workers who knew their needs well. New care workers were always introduced to people by the provider before they began to provide their care. The provider understood the importance people placed on having regular care workers and ensured people received a consistent service from familiar staff.
Staff had access to the training and support they needed to fulfil their roles. All staff attended an induction when they joined the agency and shadowed experienced colleagues until the provider was confident in their ability to provide people’s care safely and effectively.
The agency worked co-operatively with people’s families to ensure they received the treatment they needed. Relatives told us staff were observant of any changes in their family member’s needs and said the provider contacted them if they had any concerns about people’s health or welfare. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and any dietary needs recorded in their care plans. Where people needed assistance with eating and drinking there was a care plan in place to outline the support they required.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. People told us their care workers were polite, courteous and treated them and their property with respect. They said they had developed good relationships with their care workers and looked forward to their visits. Relatives told us that care workers were compassionate in their approach and sensitive to their family members’ needs. They said staff knew how their family members preferred their care to be provided and genuinely cared about their welfare. The provider told us they only recruited staff with the attitude and approach to supporting people that reflected the agency’s values, including providing high quality care that promoted independence, dignity and respect.
People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service and an individual care plan drawn up from the assessment. People were encouraged to be involved in the development of their care plans and the provider reviewed plans regularly to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs and preferences. Relatives told us their family member’s care plans had been developed in a way which gave them as much choice and control over their care as possible.
The provider had established an effective quality monitoring system, which included spot checks on staff providing people’s care. People’s views about their care were also sought regularly through telephone calls and home visits. People said the provider had made them aware of the agency’s complaints procedure but they had never needed to complain as they had regular opportunities to give their opinions about the care they received.
The records we checked in the agency’s office relating to people’s care were accurate, up to date and stored appropriately. Care staff maintained daily records for each person, which provided information about the care they received. Daily records were audited regularly to ensure the quality of recording was appropriate.