Home Instead Senior Care - Bourne

Updated 20 July 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.’

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type:

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care and support for people in their own homes. The service can provide care for adults of all ages. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support for 33 people.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The office inspection took place on 06 June 2019 and was announced. We gave the registered persons 48hours’ notice because they are sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service.

Inspection activity started on 06 June 2019 and ended on 18 June 2019. We visited the office location on 06 June 2019.

What we did:

Before the inspection we examined the information we held about the service. This included notifications of incidents that the registered persons had sent us since our last inspection. These are events that happened in the service that the registered persons are required to tell us about. We contacted Healthwatch who are an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We also invited feedback from the commissioning bodies who contributed to purchasing some of the care provided by the service. We did this so that they could tell us their views about how well the service was meeting people’s needs and wishes.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

We spoke with three people who used the service and eight relatives of people using the service. At the registered office we spoke with two care staff, the administrative officer, the training officer, two service co-ordinators and the registered manager. In addition, we looked at the care plans of four people who used the service and any associated daily records such as the daily log and medicine administration records (MARs). We looked at three staff files as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service such as duration of care calls, staffing, quality audits and training records.

Our overall observations included how people and staff interacted and how people were being supported using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

After the inspection:

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 20 July 2019

About the service:

Home Instead Senior Care provides personal care and support for adults in their own homes. The service can provide care for adults of all ages. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support for 49 people. The service covered Lincoln and surrounding areas.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were very satisfied with all aspects of the service provided and spoke highly of staff and the registered managers. People who used the service told us they were treated with compassion and kindness and that their privacy and dignity were respected.

People who used the service and relatives we spoke with told us they felt staff provided safe and effective care. Staff turnover was low which people and relatives valued. People were supported by a small team of staff that understood their needs.

We found that there were systems, processes and practices were followed to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including physical harm. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) reviewed had been completed by staff and were regularly audited by management.

Background checks had been completed before new care staff had been appointed. People were protected by there being arrangements to prevent and control infection and lessons had been learnt when things had gone wrong.

Staff had received all the training required to support people safely. Staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals and were able to reflect on the care and support they delivered. Staff were able to identify further training in addition to their mandatory training.

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

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their nutritional needs when required. People had been supported to live healthier lives by being supported to have suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support. Suitable arrangements had been made to obtain consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care staff recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity by supporting people to make choices about their lives. Confidential information was kept private.

There was strong sense of leadership in the service that was open and inclusive. The registered persons focused on achieving positive outcomes for people and their staff.

People benefited from there being a robust professional management framework that helped care staff to understand their responsibilities so that risks and regulatory requirements were met.

The service encouraged feedback from people who used the service, relatives and care staff. Views were gathered through questionnaires, telephone conversations, regular face to face meetings at their home or in the office.

One complaint had been received in the last 12 months and this had been responded to appropriately. People were introduced to lay advocates if necessary.

Quality checks had been completed to ensure people benefited from the service being able to quickly put problems right and so that people could consistently receive safe care.

Good team work was promoted and care staff were supported to speak out if they had any concerns about people not being treated in the right way. Staff were clear about the vision and values of the service. In addition, the registered persons worked in partnership with other agencies and stakeholders to support the development of joined-up care.

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

More information is available in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published 17 May 2016)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated good overall.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.