Goldleaf Homecare

Updated 8 June 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: One inspector and an expert by experience formed the inspection team. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type: Gold Leaf Homecare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults living in their own homes.

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: We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection visit because it is a care agency. We needed to be sure someone would be available to speak with and show us records. Inspection site visit activity started on 30 April 2019 and ended on 03 May 2019.

What we did: Prior to the inspection we gathered and reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications we had received. Statutory notifications notify us of deaths and other incidents that occur within the service, which when submitted enable the Commission to monitor any issues or areas of concern. We reviewed the provider information return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also carried out phone calls to people and their family members.

During the inspection: We visited the office and spoke with the registered manager, the operations manager and three care staff. We looked at five people's care records to see how their care and treatment was planned and delivered. Other records looked at included three recruitment files to check suitable staff members were recruited and received appropriate training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 8 June 2019

About the service: Goldleaf Homecare is a small domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. At the time of inspection 35 people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

There were systems in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and understood how to protect the people they supported. Risks to people's safety were identified, assessed and appropriate action was taken to keep people safe. When people were at risk staff had access to assessments and understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. There were always sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.

Staff underwent relevant pre-employment checks that assured they were suitable to care for people made vulnerable by circumstances in their own homes.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff. Senior staff carried out monthly audits of Medicine Administration Records (MAR).

People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to understand and meet people's needs. Staff felt supported and had access to training relevant to their roles. People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink. Their care plans contained information about food and drink. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff had formed positive caring relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. People were supported to remain as independent as possible due to staff knowing people's individual likes and dislikes. Staff were mindful to support people in a way which maintained their dignity and upheld their right to privacy.

There were quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. The registered manager provided clear and direct leadership to staff who had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. There were effective governance arrangements. There were systems to assess and monitor all aspects of the service.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated as good (published 04 October 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The service remains good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will inspect in line with our inspection programme or sooner if required.

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