Eclipse HomeCare (Teme Valley Office)

Eclipse Healthcare is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people in their homes. At the time of the inspection, 50 people were using the service.

Not everyone using the service received personal care; this helps with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. It 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

Risks to people's safety and well-being were assessed. Staff had information to enable them to support people safely. Care plans were detailed with people's medical conditions, and all teams had completed training to allow them to help people safely.

Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and their best interest. The policies and systems in the service helped this practice.

The provider's recruitment policy was followed, and recruitment practices were safe. All staff had completed training and had a probation period to ensure suitability. This meant the provider only employed staff that were suitable, skilled, and competent.

Staff were knowledgeable about infection prevention and control. Personal protective equipment was available.

Staff supported people using the service with their medication after completing a risk assessment. This meant people were supported safely.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process to ensure that people's views and preferences were included in their care.

People were satisfied with their care, and support and told us they had no complaints and that ‘staff and management were very nice’.

Staff supported people in preparing meals and eating and drinking.

People received support in keeping with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

Where people expressed any concerns, the management ensured that action was taken.

People's privacy and dignity were respected, and they could express their views.

The provider had procedures to monitor and improve the service, including managing incidents, accidents, safeguarding, and complaints.

For more details, please see the full report, which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at the last inspection

The last rating for the service was rated good (published 03 October 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of information we held about the service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information, we may inspect sooner.

We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake an inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people in their homes; we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office. A registered provider was in charge when we inspected the service. Registered providers 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. The service currently supports approximately 77 people living in their own home. Staff working for the service were referred to as caregivers.

People and their families spoke warmly about caregivers and felt safe with them in their homes. People and their relatives told us they were familiar with the caregivers visiting their home as they had got to know the pool of staff supporting them over a period of time.

People received care from caregivers who knew about the health conditions that they lived with. Caregivers understood people’s individual health needs and any action they needed to take to keep people safe. Some people received support with their medicines and people were happy with the support given. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure people received the correct support with their medicines.

People received care and support from caregivers who in turn felt supported through regular supervision and training. Caregivers could seek advice from the registered manager if they were unsure about aspects of people’s care. People felt confident that staff understood how to care for people and had an understanding of their individual support needs.

People’s consent was appropriately obtained by staff. Staff had received training about obtaining a person’s consent and understood what they needed to do and the importance of people understanding how they were supporting them.

People were offered choices about the meals caregivers prepared for them. People also felt assured that caregivers would seek additional help if they needed it, such help with a doctor’s appointment or to contact the emergency services.

People liked the caregivers supporting them who they saw regularly and who they felt had got to know them. Relatives also felt they had developed an understanding with caregivers about their expectations for how their family members should be care for. People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff that understood people’s individual circumstances and levels of independence and supported people accordingly.

People felt able to discuss their individual needs and preferences with the registered manager. Preferences were respected by the registered manager and fulfilled people’s expectations of care where possible. People understood that they could complain if they needed to and the process for doing so. People also felt able to share concerns with caregivers if needed.

People’s care was regularly checked and reviewed. The registered provider had clear expectations of how the service should be delivered to meet people’s need. People found staff working for the service accessible and willing to speak with them to discuss their care needs. The registered provider was working with other stakeholders to develop how they delivered care to improve people’s experience of care.