Archived: Northampton

Updated 14 July 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.

This announced inspection took place on 11, 14 and 15 June 2018 and was undertaken by one inspector. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we needed to ensure someone was available to facilitate the inspection.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a 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. The provider completed and returned the PIR in December 2017 and we considered this when we made judgments in this report.

We reviewed the information we held about the service including statutory notifications and any safeguarding referrals raised. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law.

During the inspection, we spoke with the one person who was using the service at the time of the inspection, a member of staff and the registered manager.

We reviewed the care records of the one person using the service and three staff recruitment files. We also reviewed records relating to the management and quality assurance of the service.

Updated 14 July 2018

Northampton is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community.

Not everyone using Northampton receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, one person was receiving personal care.

At the last inspection in August 2016, the service was rated 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 ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive safe care and support. Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.

The person using the service told us that they felt cared for safely in their own home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staff understood their role in caring for people with limited or no capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.

Care plans were personalised to people's individual needs and wishes. Records contained detailed information to assist care workers to provide care and support in an individualised manner that respected a person's individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. They were supported to maintain good health, and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People received care from staff that were compassionate, friendly and kind. Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide the care and support people needed and were supported by a registered manager who was receptive to ideas and committed to providing a high standard of care.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.