Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Warwickshire

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.

People and relatives we spoke with told us that the care planning was discussed with them regularly. We saw they were involved with providing their consent regarding the planning of care for people using the service.

We found that the care plans were person centred and reflected people's individual needs. People and relatives we spoke with told us that staff supported people as detailed within their care plans. They told us staff were compassionate and caring when supporting people. We found there were risk assessments available to inform staff on how to manage any identified risks for people.

People and relatives we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and supportive. We spoke with staff who knew what people's care needs were and how they needed to be supported.

We spoke with six members about what they thought abuse was and they showed they had a good awareness of the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding potential abuse.

We found the service was well led and the provider monitored the quality of service being provided.

We gathered evidence of people's experiences through speaking with two people who use the service. We spoke with two members of staff who supported people.

People we spoke with told us that the care received matched the care that was discussed with them. They told us that they were involved in planning the care and that reviews were held to reassess their needs. We saw that people and family members had provided information on their care plan.

We saw that the care plans were person centred and reflected people's needs. This meant that the care plan was based on the needs of the person. We saw that people's needs were reassessed and where necessary the care plan was updated. We saw that people's like and dislikes were clear within their care plans.

People we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and supportive. We saw their were regular members of care staff who provided people's personal care. Continuity of staff should mean that people receive their care consistently as staff have an increased understanding of people's needs.

We spoke with staff about what they thought abuse was and they showed they had a good awareness of the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding abuse.

We saw records were kept up to date and stored securely.