We carried out a review of the data available to us about Goldleaf Homecare 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 Goldleaf Homecare, you can give feedback on this 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
The service has a registered manager. 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.
There were systems in place which provided guidance for staff on how to safeguard the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.
There were procedures and processes in place to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. People were safe because staff understood their responsibilities in managing risk. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.
Staff respected people’s choices and took their preferences into account when providing support
There were sufficient staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred.
Training records for staff showed that essential training, covering a variety of topics, had been undertaken including induction training.
Staff members received regular supervisions, this showed that appropriate systems were in place to support staff to do their job.
Staff were valued and received the necessary support and guidance to provide a person centred and flexible service.
People told us they knew who and how to contact the service if they had a concern or complaint
People who needed support with their medication told us that they are happy with the arrangements. At the time of inspection people were able to take their own medication or were supported by relatives, staff support consisted of prompts to enable people to take their medicines independently.