We carried out a review of the data available to us about Westminster Homecare Limited – South Bucks 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 Westminster Homecare Limited – South Bucks, you can give feedback on this service.
This was our first inspection of the location since a change in the service’s office address. We last inspected the service in 2014 under our prior inspection methodology .
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older and younger adults, people with physical disabilities sensory impairments, learning disabilities or dementia.
Westminster Homecare Limited (Buckinghamshire) is part of a corporate provider of care at home services, with 21 registered locations. At the time of our inspection, more than 140 people used the service and there were more than 50 staff.
The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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. At the time of our inspection, there was a manager registered with us.
People were protected from abuse and neglect. Appropriate systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of preventable harm. People’s care risks were appropriately assessed, mitigated and recorded. Recruitment practices and supporting documentation met the requirements set by the regulations. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were safely managed.
The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff induction, training, supervision and performance appraisals were robust and ensured workers had the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively support people. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. We found there was collaborative working with other community healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
The service was extremely caring. There was consistently complimentary feedback from people who used the service and relatives. Staff often went beyond their usual role to ensure people were safe, well-cared for and treated holistically. The service prevented social isolation of people who lacked contact with their local community. People told us they could participate in care planning and reviews. People also told us they were consistently encouraged by staff to make decisions for themselves, and only assisted when needed. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when care was provided to them.
Care plans were appropriate and contained information on how to support people in the best possible way. We saw there was a complaints system in place which included the ability for people to contact any office-based staff member or the management team. Concerns and complaints were recorded and reviewed to ensure positive outcomes. Questionnaires were used to determine people’s satisfaction with the care.
People, relatives and stakeholders had overwhelmingly positive opinions about the care, staff, management and leadership of the service. There was an excellent workplace culture and we saw the staff worked cohesively to ensure good care for people. Robust, frequent and extensive audits and checks were used to gauge the safety and quality of care. Where necessary, improvements were made to continuously make the service better. The service offered their support to the group of locations operated by the provider. The provider had a detailed knowledge of the service’s core operations and performance.