We carried out a review of the data available to us about Genuine Care Homecare Services 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 Genuine Care Homecare Services Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
The registered manager’s (who was also the provider) enthusiasm for caring for people was highly infectious and was clearly felt by all who met them. This therefore promoted a high quality and caring culture within the service which achieved remarkably positive outcomes for people.
All feedback was overwhelmingly positive from people, relatives, health and social care professionals, commissioners and staff for all aspects of the service.
Care staff were well trained, highly caring and competent; and engaged with the provider who empowered them to provide high quality care and support with continuity for people.
People were supported to stay well and have a good quality of life in line with their wishes and relatives were confident their loved ones were safe and well cared for. The service was highly flexible, and person centred so people could have as much or as little support as they needed. People were truly respected and supported to maintain control of their lives and were involved as much as possible.
People were provided with excellent care at the end of their lives. People were enabled to have a pain free and positive death, in that a compassionate environment was created for them in line with their wishes.
The provider had earned an excellent reputation and was part of their local community. They had continued to find new ways to support people, their relatives and their local community with the development of their drop-in centre.
The home met the characteristics of Outstanding in Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Rating at last inspection: Outstanding (report published 01 September 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a comprehensive planned inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Outstanding.
There was a registered manager in post. 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. The registered provider was also the registered manager of the service.
People were safe when using this service. Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. Risks to people’s wellbeing were assessed and action taken to reduce these. The service focused on keeping people safe whilst promoting their independence. People were supported to manage their medicines in a safe way. Staff responded quickly to changes in people’s health and worked with other health care professionals to meet their needs. People were given support and advice to ensure they could prepare and eat a varied and healthy diet.
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and staffing levels were flexible according to people’s changing needs. The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people. Staff were qualified and received training that helped them to deliver a high quality service to people. The registered manager provided support and guidance to staff to ensure they were equipped to carry out their roles. Staff felt valued by the registered manager and supported in their roles.
People were asked to consent before any care was given. Where people had difficulty making decisions the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to ensure people’s rights were protected. People were involved in planning their care and their views about how this should be delivered were recorded and respected. Clear information about the service, the management, the facilities, and how to complain was provided to people. Information was available in a format that met people’s needs.
People told us that the staff were extremely caring. Staff communicated effectively with them, responded to their needs promptly and treated them with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and were exceptional at delivering care that made people feel valued. The service regularly went above and beyond the agreed care package to deliver sensitive and caring support to people. They had enabled people to access their local community and do things they had previously been restricted in doing. The registered manager was passionate about promoting person centred values as the basis of the service and ensured these were followed consistently by staff. The staff understood the importance of ensuring people’s emotional needs were met as well as their physical needs. Staff had been trained, through the local hospice, to provide sensitive and compassionate care for people who were reaching the end of their life.
People’s privacy was respected and people were supported in a way that respected their dignity and independence. The staff promoted people’s independence and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves. Staff understood that people’s needs could fluctuate daily and they were able to provide a flexible and responsive approach to changes in need. A healthcare professional told us, “Some of my clients can only remain in their home because they have this particular agency.”
People received care that was responsive to their individual needs. People told us that the care they received was “exceptional”. They were involved in developing care plans that reflected their needs and their preferences and staff were skilled in delivering their care in the way they preferred. The service routinely reviewed people’s needs and were quick to respond when their needs changed. People received a flexible service and could make changes to their visits without additional charge.
People’s views about the quality of the service they received was sought and people’s views listened to. The registered manager took action to make improvements based on feedback from people, staff and other stakeholders. The registered manager was passionate about the values of the agency and committed to providing the very best service to people. This passion and commitment had been cascaded to all staff who spoke positively about people’s rights and their role to enable people to live meaningful and empowered lives.
The service was exceptionally well led. One person told us “We have used other agencies before and I can honestly say Genuine Care are excellent.” The registered manager was proactive in keeping up to date with relevant best practice guidance in person centred care and the care of people living with dementia. They encouraged and enabled staff to improve their knowledge and skills on an ongoing basis. The registered manager had a proactive and effective system for monitoring the quality and safety of the service and ensuring the ongoing improvement of service delivery. The registered manager was honest and transparent in their leadership of the service. A healthcare professional told us, “I find them to be helpful, considerate and honest. If they are unable to take a service user they will advise, rather than take them on and then let them down.”
The service had provided us with an action plan to demonstrate how they planned to remedy this within a time frame. During our inspection, we found that this plan had been implemented and that the situation had been remedied.
We spoke with the manager, the operation director and the senior care manager. We looked at the recruitment process, six sets of personnel files, staff training records and the service's policies and procedures.
During this inspection, the inspector focused on answering our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because all care staff were trained in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. All staff had been subject to Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks and criminal checks from their country of origin before they started work. The service ensured that staff were of good character, suitable for the job and that they were entitled to work in the UK.
Is the service effective?
We found that the staff had received the training they required to meet the needs of people who used the service and that additional training was available. There was a robust recruitment process that followed legal requirements.
Is the service caring?
We found that people who used the service were supported by kind and attentive staff. Two people who used the service told us the staff were 'Quality staff' and 'Well trained, polite and friendly'.
Is the service responsive?
A member of staff told us, 'There is so much support available and the manager really cares about the staff". Staff's practice was regularly observed and monitored to check good care practice was maintained and to identify whether additional training or refresher courses were needed. The manager told us, 'The staff's problems are our problems and we respond to them immediately'.
Is the service well-led?
We found that the registered manager had a system of quality assurance in place to identify how to improve the service. Spot checks were carried out to ensure that staff maintained good practice. People and their relatives or representatives were regularly consulted about their level of satisfaction. We saw the service operated an 'open door' policy where staff were encouraged to express their views. One member of staff told us, "I love this job. There is an excellent communication in the office and it is a pleasure to work in such a caring environment'.
At the time of our inspection the service provided support to 50 people who received support with their personal care.
The inspector gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? The inspector gathered information from people using the service and their relatives by telephoning them.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures are robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.
People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The staff rotas took into account people's care needs and the health and wellbeing of staff. We saw that people who required support using specialist equipment had two staff allocated to assist them. This ensured that their needs were met.
Recruitment policies and procedures were in place. People who used the service were involved in the interview process where this was possible. However, checks that should have been completed before staff started working for the service were not always carried out. References from the most recent employer had not always been taken up and steps had not been taken to identify the reason for gaps in employment
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements to meet the requirements of the law in relation to checks and documentation required before staff start working at the service.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their care plans. When specialist needs had been identified, staff had received training in these areas. We found that care plans were up to date and reflected people's current needs.
People told us that they could contact the registered manager when needed and that they were listened to.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with people who used the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'Devoted carers', 'They are not clock watchers', 'Caring carers'.
People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were identified, the service responded to address any issues.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person said that they had made a complaint and were satisfied with the outcome.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people were safe and protected from harm.
Is the service well-led?
The service has a quality assurance system, and records showed that problems that were identified were addressed promptly. When opportunities to make improvements were identified they were acted on.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service. Staff said that they felt well supported and the registered manager was always contactable if they needed help or guidance. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
We found the service provided people with information they needed to make an informed choice to give or withhold consent in regard to care, treatment and support provided. People using the service told us that carers had respected their choices about how they were supported.
People told us that they had had the opportunity to discuss with the service their care needs, how these would be met and about their experience of receiving the service provided. We found the service had suitable systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.
We found that people using the service had been given information about how to make a complaint should they need to do so. People using the service told us that issues shared were treated seriously and quickly resolved.
People told us that they were very happy with the care and support that they received. Two people said that the staff were good, 'the staff were very nice and caring'. Two relatives of people who used the service said, 'The staff go over and above in what they do and they said 'the staff were brilliant'.
People told us that their privacy and dignity was promoted. They said that the staff were polite. One person said 'The staff are excellent'. Another person said 'the staff are helpful and friendly'.
People told us that they always received their visits, staff arrived on time and they stayed for the agreed amount of time. People said if the staff were running late they were informed.
People told us that were asked for their views and they felt listened to. They told us that would feel confident with raining any concerns with the agency. A relative of a person who used the service said, 'The manager works hard to provide a good service and has been consistent in providing good care'.