We carried out a review of the data available to us about Jays Homecare Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Jays Homecare Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Jays Homecare Limited is a domiciliary care service providing the regulated activity of personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting 70 people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC 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
People and relatives we spoke with told us that they felt safe and comfortable when receiving care from their allocated care staff member.
People and relatives were positive about the support they received and described their carers as, “fantastic”, “marvellous”, “well-trained” and “friendly.”
Care staff knew how to safeguard people from any form of possible abuse and the actions they would take to report their concerns.
Care plans contained comprehensive risk assessments. These gave clear information to care staff about people’s identified risks, how this affected them and how to support people to reduce or mitigate those know risks in order to keep them safe from harm.
Processes were in place ensure that people received their medicines on time and as prescribed.
Staff recruitment processes ensured all staff recruited were assessed as safe to work with vulnerable adults. People and relatives told us that staff were generally on time and that where they were running late they were always informed of this.
Care staff received an induction, regular training, supervision, appraisals and support which enabled them to carry out their role effectively.
People were supported with their nutrition and hydration where this was an identified need.
The service supported people to access health and care services where required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Care plans were person centred and detailed, giving staff clear information about the person and how they wished to be supported.
Complaints were recorded, investigated and responded to according to the provider’s complaints policy.
We have made a recommendation in relation to planning for end of life care.
People and relatives were encouraged to give feedback regularly about the quality of service that they received from Jays Homecare Limited.
The service carried out a variety of checks to monitor the quality of care people received so that appropriate actions and learning could be taken forward to improve people's experiences.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 19 January 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Jays Homecare Ltd provides domiciliary care services to 85 people living in their own home. The service works with people living with dementia, learning disabilities, older people and people with sensory, physical and mental impairments.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
People told us that where staff supported them with their medicines, this was carried out appropriately. We looked at seven Medicine Administration Records (MAR) and found that there were no gaps in recording. MAR charts are the formal record of administration of medicine within the care setting. However, where medicines were administered from a blister pack or dossette box, the individual name of the medicine, dose and frequency prescribed was not detailed on the MAR chart.
Individualised care plans were available and written from the point of view of the people that were being supported. Care plans were detailed and provided information to enable staff to support people appropriately. We saw that care plans were regularly reviewed and updated as changes occurred.
Risk assessments were personalised and identified risks associated with people’s care and support needs. Where risks were identified, there was detailed guidance available for staff to ensure that identified risks were managed or mitigated so that people were kept safe from harm.
People told us that they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff were able to explain how they would recognise and report abuse and clearly understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe.
The service followed robust recruitment procedures to make sure that only suitable staff were employed.
Complaints were appropriately investigated and details of the actions taken were clearly noted with a response sent to the complainant acknowledging their concerns and the actions taken to make improvements where necessary. However, we noted that the complaints received all detailed a common theme in relation to lateness of staff, missed visits and poor communication.
People and relatives told us that they received a team of regular care workers to support them. The service tried to ensure that the same care staff were allocated to a person’s care package. Although people confirmed that this generally happened, where a change was required due to regular care staff being on annual leave or on sick leave, changes were not communicated effectively by the office staff.
Staff confirmed that they received regular training and supervision in order to support people effectively.
Staff understood that it was not right to make decisions and choices for people when they could make decisions and choices for themselves. People’s ability around decision making, preferences and choices were recorded in their care plan and followed by staff.
People and relatives confirmed that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the planning of their care and support. Support plans included the views of people using the service and their relatives.
A number of quality assurance systems were in place which included spot checks, quality assurance reviews and quality surveys and questionnaires. Where areas for improvement were identified, the information was used as an opportunity to improve the care and support people received.
Staff attended regular team meetings and completed annual surveys where they were able to give their views and feedback about the quality of the service that they delivered. Staff confirmed that any ideas or suggestions that they had were listened to and where possible improvements were made.
Most people and relatives knew the registered manager and office staff and were positive about how the service was managed overall. Care staff were also complimentary about the director as well as the registered manager and felt able to approach them with their concerns.