Background to this inspection
Updated
26 February 2019
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.
This inspection took place on 25 January 2019 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting care workers or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to speak with us on the day of our inspection.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience who spoke with people by telephone. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection we reviewed information about the service such as notifications they are required to submit to CQC. Notifications outline any significant events that occur within the service. The provider had provided a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form which gives us some key information about the service, including what the service does well, what the service could do better and improvements they plan to make
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the care co-ordinator, a field supervisor, regional manager for Carewatch (Kingston and Merton) and other office staff.
We reviewed the care records of four people who used the service, and looked at the records of three care staff and other records relating to the management of the service.
We spoke with seven people who used the service or their relatives and four care staff.
Updated
26 February 2019
This inspection took place on 25 January 2019 and was announced. We told the provider 48 hours before our visit that we would be coming, to ensure that the people we needed to speak with would be available.
Advance Home Care Limited provides domiciliary care and support to 35 people living in Kingston, Merton and the surrounding area. Advance Home Care Limited is part of the Carewatch franchise and is known as Advance Home Care Ltd T/A Carewatch Kingston & Merton.
The service delivers care to people in their own homes, including personal care such as assistance with bathing, dressing, eating and medicines; home help covering all aspects of day-to-day housework, shopping, meal preparation and household duties. We only looked at the service for people receiving personal care during this inspection as this is the service that is registered with the Care Quality Commission.
At our previous inspection in June 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People told us they felt safe with the support they received from staff. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to inform people who used the service and staff how to report potential or suspected abuse. Staff we spoke with understood what constituted abuse and were aware of the steps to take to protect people.
There were sufficient numbers of skilled and trained staff working at the service. Staff's suitability to work with vulnerable adults at the service had been checked prior to employment. For instance, previous employer references had been sought and a criminal conviction check undertaken.
People received their medicines as required, from trained and competent staff. Staff ensured people were protected from the risk of acquiring an infection during the provision of their care.
People were supported 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.
Care records contained information to identify people's requirements and preferences in relation to their care and there was evidence to show that they had been consulted about decisions. The provider had maintained arrangements to monitor and assess the safety and quality of the service.
People and staff were asked for their views about how the service could be improved. If people were unhappy and wished to make a complaint, the provider had arrangements in place to deal with their concerns appropriately.
There was an open and transparent approach to the management of the service which included team meetings, supervision and competency assessments of staff, which included on-site observations and quality checks by telephoning people. The registered manager and regional manager from the Carewatch franchise acknowledged that regular, formal individual supervision meetings with staff had in previous months been sporadic and had acted to remedy this.