Background to this inspection
Updated
30 August 2019
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an Expert by Experience. 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
Golden Years Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
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
This inspection was announced. We gave the registered manager 72 hours’ notice, to ensure they would be available and to give them time to gain people’s consent for us to contact them for feedback.
Inspection site visit activity started on 01 August 2019 and ended on 05 August 2019. We visited the office location on 01,02 August 2019 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. We made telephone calls to people and relatives on 01 August 2019 and telephoned staff on 05 August 2019.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed previous inspection reports and information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included information from the provider about important events that had taken place at the service, which they are required to send us. We sought feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. 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 used this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke on the telephone with five people who were supported by the service and five relatives, to gain their feedback about the support provided. We spoke with three care staff, the registered manager and the quality manager.
We reviewed a range of records. These included three people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff recruitment files and records related to the management of the service, including policies and procedures and audits.
After the inspection
We received updates from the provider who shared additional evidence related to the inspection.
Updated
30 August 2019
About the service
Golden Years Limited is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to and nursing care to people living in their own homes.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Not all staff had received recent training on the administration of medicines. Care plans did not guide staff on the side effects on medicines administered. We have made a recommendation about this. People told us they felt safe and they received their medicines on time.
People received regular reviews of their care needs. Staff received training at the start of their employment to ensure they had the skills to provide effective care. However, the provision of ongoing training had lapsed. The provider had recently started to introduce new training for staff. Staff felt very supported by the manager and management team. We saw the provider worked with community health professionals to ensure people received effective care.
The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. However, not all errors were noted and acted upon. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would review their processes. People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager and management team. There was a positive culture throughout the service which focused on providing care that was individualised. They were aware of their regulatory responsibilities associated with their role.
Staff told us they knew how to manage risks effectively and identify signs and symptoms of abuse and who to report concerns to. The registered manager had robust recruitment procedures and staffing levels delivered responsive support to people. Staff had access to protective equipment to protect people from the risk of infections.
People told us staff treated them with dignity and were respectful. Care plans held personalised information about people likes and dislikes and how they liked to be supported. People were 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. Care plans held personalised information that reflected people’s personalities and promoted independent living. One relative told us, “We are very happy and would recommend the service without hesitation. It gives us peace of mind and it’s very personal and they take time to sit and chat with [family member] which is great.”
The service was willing and able to support people with activities. There was a complaints policy that supported positive engagement and timely action. Should it be required end of life care could be provided. Continuity of care was promoted by the service, so people were supported by familiar staff.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.