My Homecare Crowborough

Updated 21 March 2018

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.

This comprehensive inspection took place between 24 and 30 January 2018. It involved visits to the agency’s office, visits to people in their own homes, telephone interviews with people and/or their relatives and conversations with staff. The service was given two hours’ notice of the inspection because it provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure that staff were available in the office to be able to conduct the inspection. The inspection was undertaken by an 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.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the agency. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing any potential areas of concern. The provider had sent us an information return (PIR) in which they outlined how they ensured they were meeting people's needs and their plans for the next 12 months. As part of the inspection, we reviewed the PIR and other information about the service, including safeguarding alerts which had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also contacted the local authority to receive their comments.

We met with three people who received a service in their own homes and two of their relatives. We received comments from 11 people, eight people’s relatives and one professional. We spoke with eight staff, the care co-ordinator, deputy manager, registered manager and provider. We reviewed eight people’s records, including the three people we met with.

During the inspection we reviewed other records. These included six staff recruitment records, training and supervision records, medicines records, the rota of visits to people, risk assessments, quality audits and policies and procedures.

Updated 21 March 2018

This inspection took place between 24 and 30 January 2018. The agency provided 36 people with a domiciliary service, for approximately 347 hours a week. Domiciliary care is a service where people are provided with personal care in their own homes. Many of the people were older persons, some people also lived with long-term medical conditions. People received a range of different support. Some people needed frequent visits, including visits several times a day, this could include two members of staff and the use of equipment to support their mobility. Some people needed support with medicines and meals preparation. Services were provided to people who lived in the East Sussex town of Crowborough and the surrounding villages.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has been 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 provider for the agency is Budden Care Ltd, this is their only registered service. The service is provided as part of a franchise for My Homecare Limited, a national provider of care.

This was the service’s first inspection since it was registered in February 2017. At this inspection, the service was rated as Good, with Requires Improvement under well-led.

Issues relating to the appropriate timing of visits to people, including travel time for staff between calls were identified. A phone app, used by staff and linked to the service’s computer system was in the process of being introduced which would enable analysis of such matters. Once these systems were fully operational, management would be able to review relevant information and identify areas for service improvement. There were also some issues relating to recording of certain information about people’s care needs. Some issues had been identified and improvements were being progressed. Other information would be improved once the phone app was fully operational and used by all staff.

People were safeguarded against risk, including risk of abuse. The registered manager performed a full assessment of people’s needs before they agreed to provide them with a service. People had relevant risk assessments completed. Where risk was identified care plans, which were regularly reviewed, were put in place to reduce risk. Staff knew about how to ensure people’s safety, including safety from risk of abuse. Where people used equipment, staff used it safely.

Where people needed support with medicines, this was done in a safe way. Staff completed relevant records about supporting people with medicines. These were regularly reviewed by management. Where people needed support to eat and drink, people had care plans, which staff followed, so their needs were met.

Staff understood the principals of prevention of risk of infection. Staff said they had ample supplies of items such as disposable gloves. Staff followed the provider’s policies and procedures when they were with people in their own homes.

There were enough staff to ensure people did not experience missed or shortened visits. Staff had been recruited in a safe way to ensure new members of staff were safe to support people.

Staff were supported by the agency so they had the skills they needed to meet their individual needs. This was through the provider’s ongoing induction and training programmes. The performance of staff was also regularly monitored, including when they worked with people in their own homes.

People were supported with accessing relevant external professionals, including their GPs and district nurses. People told us the agency supported them appropriately when they needed additional support, including in the event of an emergency.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to care. Where relevant, people had mental capacity assessments completed, and best interests meetings were recorded.

People commented on the kindness, compassion and respect they received from staff. They also said staff encouraged them in remaining as independent as they wished to be. Staff supported people and their relatives in a kindly and supportive way. Staff clearly knew people as individuals, taking their preferences into account when providing care.

People told us they received a responsive service from staff, who knew them well. Staff told us people’s care plans informed them of how each person wanted to have their individual needs met. Care plans about people’s personal care needs were clear and up-dated when people’s needs changed.

People said they felt confident if they raised complaints or concerns, these would be responded to. Records showed the registered manager followed the provider’s complaints policy.

People commented positively on the management of the agency. Staff told us about the agency’s positive culture. Managers were keen to make improvements and ensure people’s needs were met. The provider had a system for regular audit of the service provided. If matters were identified, action was taken to address issues.