WEF Care Also known as Chesterfield Respectful Care

About the service

Respectful Care is a domiciliary care provider providing personal care to people living in their own homes, so they can live as independently as possible.

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. There were 23 people receiving regulated care activity at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were very complimentary about the registered manager and care staff.

There were enough staff to effectively meet the current packages of care which supported people’s needs. People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to ensure they were safe from harm. Risk assessments had been completed; to assess and reduce any risks associated with required support. Staff were recruited in line with best practice. Medicines were managed safely, and staff ensured clear infection control practices. The provider had reflected on incidents, and lessons had been learned.

People were supported by a regular team of care staff, they said they generally received their calls on time. People were confident care staff had received appropriate training to meet their needs; this was in line with best practice and current guidelines. When people required support with their nutritional needs this was recorded and reflective of the individual’s needs.

The care was provided by kind and caring staff and people told us they treated them with respect. Care plans reflected the individuals needs and any communication needs were identified and supported along with any cultural or religious needs. Care staff understood the importance of respecting people’s diverse needs and promoting independence.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies to make sure people received the right care and support. Health care was promoted, and staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals.

The provider ensured that any complaints had been responded to, and people and staff were encouraged to give feedback.

There was a range of improvements made by the management team since the last inspection, to demonstrate the service was now well led. Auditing and quality assurance processes were more robust and the service was now working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. 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.

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 Requires Improvement (published 19 September 2018).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

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

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 16 July 2018. At the time of the inspection, 39 people received some element of support with their personal care. This is the service’s first inspection since they registered with us in May 2017.

The policies and systems in the service did not always support people to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Where people did not have the capacity to make some decisions, suitable systems were not in place to ensure assessments were carried out and decisions were made in their best interest. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and people felt they received their medicines when needed. However, improvements were needed to ensure all medicines were recorded. The provider’s policies needed to be reviewed to reflect current best practice guidance in these areas and we have made recommendations about developing these.

Potential risks were identified and management plans were in place to guide staff on the best way to reduce these risks. Staff understood their role in protecting people from harm and poor care. There were recruitment procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable to work within a caring environment. People felt there were enough staff working in the service and were supported by a small team who knew them well. Staff had access to training to improve their knowledge of care and enhance their skills.

People received kind and compassionate care. Staff supported people to maintain their dignity, independence and privacy. Staff gained information about what was important to people so that they could provide care that met their preferences. People were treated with dignity and respect and their wishes acted on so they received individualised care that reflected their personal preferences and needs. People were supported with their meals and other health and social care agencies were involved where further support was needed for people.

People had a support plan which recorded their personal preferences for the way they wanted their care to be provided and was reviewed. People felt concerns would be listened to and the registered manager was approachable. Staff felt valued and respected and felt able to contribute to the development of the service. Quality assurance systems were in place to identify concerns and drive improvements.