Home Instead Mid Cornwall

Updated 17 November 2017

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.

The inspection took place on 16 and 17 October 2017 and was announced. We gave notice of the inspection in line with our methodology for inspecting domiciliary care services. One inspector undertook the inspection. Before visiting the service we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) and previous inspection reports. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service. We also reviewed other information we held about the service such as notifications of incidents. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we went to the provider’s office and spoke with the registered manager and the nominated individual from the registered provider Lankelly Care Limited. We had contact with four staff by email or telephone. We looked at four records relating to the care of individuals, four staff recruitment files, staff duty rosters, staff training records and records relating to the running of the service.

We visited four people in their own homes. We also carried out a postal survey. From the three people we contacted we received a response from one person, who used the service.

Updated 17 November 2017

Home Instead Senior Care Mid Cornwall provides care and support to people in their own homes. Home Instead Senior Care is a franchise which is operated by Lankelly Care Limited for this location. The majority of people who used the service, at the time of the inspection, were elderly. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs primarily in the St Austell, Wadebridge, Fowey River, Padstow and Launceston areas. The service provides a minimum of one hour visits, and ensures care is provided by a small group of staff for each individual.

At the time of our inspection twenty people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately, through Cornwall Council or NHS funding.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out this announced inspection on 16 October and 17 October 2017. This was the service’s first inspection since it was registered in March 2016.

People told us they were positive about the support they received from the service. They said the service was, “Doing an excellent job. I cannot say anything bad about them,” and “They are first class. Good as gold.”

People told us they felt safe. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected.

There were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs. People told us they had a team of regular staff and their visits were at the agreed times. People told us they had never experienced a missed care visit.

People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke very highly of staff and typical comments included; “Very nice. They are respectful and kind,” and “They have a laugh. It makes all the difference if you are unwell.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

The management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions

for themselves had their legal rights protected.

Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff said management were, “Very supportive,” and “Very approachable.”

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. The service had an effective management team, and Care Quality Commission registration, and notification requirements had been complied with.