Background to this inspection
Updated
25 January 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 service was last inspected on 12 November 2013, and was judged to be compliant.
The inspection visit took place on 3 November 2016 and was announced. We told the provider 48 hours in advance so they had time to arrange for us to speak with staff. The inspection was conducted by one 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.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people, and fund the care provided. We also looked at statutory notifications sent to us by the service. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.
We reviewed the information in the provider’s information return (PIR). This is a form we asked the provider to send to us before we visited. The PIR asked the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information when conducting our inspection, and found it reflected what we saw during our inspection visit.
Prior to the inspection visit, we spoke by telephone with seven people who received care and support in their own homes. We also spoke with four relatives of people who used the service. During our inspection visit, we spoke with two company directors, the registered manager, the care co-ordinator, a field senior and the Learning and Development Manager. We also spoke with five care staff.
We reviewed six people’s care plans, to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We looked at other records related to people’s care, and how the service operated to check how the provider gathered information to improve the service. This included medicine records, staff recruitment records, the provider’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.
Updated
25 January 2017
This inspection took place on 3 November 2016. At the time of our inspection visit, the provider had moved offices and was running services for this location from suites 5a and 5b, Hatton Rock Business Centre rather than Suite 4 as indicated in this report.
Home Instead Senior Care Warwickshire provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes. Some people required 24-hour care. At the time of our inspection, 170 people were supported with personal care.
The service had 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.
People and their relatives told us staff were always respectful and treated people with dignity, kindness and respect. They told us care staff went above and beyond what was expected, to ensure people were happy and well and were able to achieve the things that were most important to them. People’s privacy was maintained. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives. For example, they were supported to maintain any activities, interests and relationships that were important to them.
People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff who supported them. Staff received training to safeguard people from abuse. They were supported by the provider, who acted on concerns raised and ensured staff followed safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s safety were identified and staff were aware of current risks, and how they should be managed.
People were administered medicines by staff who were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines safely. Records indicated people’s medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed. Checks were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively, and people told us they had a consistent and small group of staff who supported them, which they appreciated. The provider conducted pre-employment checks prior to staff starting work, to ensure their suitability to support people who lived in their own homes.
People told us staff asked their consent before undertaking any care tasks. Where people were able to make their own decisions, staff respected their right to do so. Staff and the registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act.
Staff were well trained and effective in their role with the support of high quality training and development. The provider was taking steps to enhance this further so staff had access to coaching and mentoring to make them more effective in their role.
People saw health professionals when needed and the care and support provided was in line with what they had recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care and gave staff information about people’s communication, their likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans were updated with the most recent information and were detailed. People were involved in how their care and support was delivered, as were their relatives if people needed and wanted them to be.
People and relatives were confident the service was well run and well managed.
Staff were felt supported by managers and senior staff who were accessible and responsive. The provider had systems in place to act on feedback it received and improve the service provided. The provider worked pro-actively in their local community, and in partnership with other organisations and agencies.
The provider’s registration was subject to the condition that the regulated activity of personal care would be conducted from a specific address. The nominated individual for the provider informed us they had been conducting the regulated activity from an alternative address since March 2015, this was in breach of their conditions of registration. The provider had submitted applications for the amendment of their conditions of registration in August 2016 but these had not been processed by the date of our inspection visit.