Right at Home Swindon

At the last inspection in March 2016 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall. The provider was in a process of making improvements around records and quality assurance. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Why the service is rated Good overall:

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to ensure the service was monitored. We received mixed feedback from staff about how supported they were. The registered manager was in a process of addressing these concerns

People remained safe. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. The provider had systems in place to ensure, that as far as possible, staff recruited were safe and suitable to work with people. Staff understood how to protect people and how to alert management and authorities if they had any safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments around people’s well-being and environment were carried out. People received their medicines as needed. However, we made a recommendation around ensuring the records are consistent and in line with good practice.

The service remained effective. People's needs were assessed prior to commencement of the service to ensure these could be met and people were involved. Staff received ongoing training to carry out their roles and they received supervision. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and had access to health services as required.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and report on what we find. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the staff at the service supported this practice. People’s rights to make own decisions were respected.

The service remained caring. Staff supported people in a compassionate way. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity. People developed positive relationships with staff and were supported to be as independent as possible.

The service remained responsive. People told us they received the support that met their needs. People and their relatives were involved in care planning process and reviews. The registered manager worked to ensure people’s care plans were updated and in date. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s policy and people knew how to complain.

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.

The provider ensured people’s feedback was sought regularly. People knew who the registered manager was and how to contact the office if required. The service was working well with a number of external social and health professionals and we received positive feedback from two professionals.

This inspection took place on 3 March 2016. This was the first inspection of this service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People were kept safe by appropriately trained and competent staff. Sufficient numbers of staff were involved in delivering care packages to individual people. Staff were matched with people in accordance with their needs, knowledge, ages, hobbies and personalities.

People and their relatives told us the service was reliable and they had never experienced a missed visit. We found the service had an electronic system in place to alert them if staff were late for a visit. Visits were planned and staff were given enough time to provide people with all the support they required.

There was a safe system of recruitment in place which helped protect people who use the service from unsuitable staff. Staff received the induction, training, support and supervision required to ensure they had the skills and knowledge needed to carry out their roles effectively.

Person-centred risk assessments were in place and gave staff precise guidance on how to minimise and manage identified risks. Detailed care plans described how people wished to be supported. People were involved in making decisions about their support. They participated in a range of activities, both in their own home and in the community, and staff assisted and supported them to do this.

People told us they received reliable care from a team of staff who understood their likes, dislikes and preferences regarding care and support. People were kept informed of any changes affecting care delivery.

There was a robust system of quality assurance in place. Monthly checks and audits were used to assess, monitor and review the functioning of the service. The registered manager regularly worked together with staff to assess the quality of the service provided.

The provider encouraged people and staff to share their opinions about the quality of the service through reviews and weekly quality assurance calls. Staff knew they could always contact the registered manager for support when needed. They confirmed they were also provided with relevant information or advice if required.

People who use the service, relatives and staff we spoke with were very complimentary about the registered manager. Staff were glad to work for the service and felt very supported in their roles.

We found the evidence of compliments and complaints that highlighted the fact that the management worked effectively and transparently.