Background to this inspection
Updated
3 June 2016
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.
The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector and took place on 23 March 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provided personal care in the community and we needed to be sure that staff and managers would be present in the office.
Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and any notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.
Prior to the inspection, we sent surveys to 8 people who used the service, 23 staff and 8 relatives or friends of people. We received 14 survey responses back. Prior to the inspection, we looked at the provider’s own website, other adult social care websites, and social media to gain further information about the service. During the inspection we spoke with the nominated individual, registered manager, the training manager, and three other staff. After the inspection, we spoke with six people who used the service. We spoke with one community health professional who works in conjunction with the service. We did not speak with relatives as part of this inspection. We also did not visit people’s homes as part of this inspection. We contacted local authorities for their feedback regarding the service.
As part of the inspection, we also contacted people to ‘share their experience’ with us using our website and by contacting the inspector directly. We received 10 responses to our request for feedback. All of the feedback from people was considered as part of our report. This was separate feedback to that which we had received through formal surveys of people who used the service.
We looked at six people’s individual care records. These included support plans, risk assessments and daily monitoring records. We also looked at four staff personnel file and records associated with the management of the service, including quality audits. We asked the provider to send us further information following the completion of the office-based part of the inspection.
Updated
3 June 2016
Home Instead Senior Care provides both personal care, companionship and home help to people in their own homes. The office of the service is located in the central business district of Maidenhead in Berkshire and covers the geographical areas of Maidenhead, Henley, Wallingford and other small villages in the area. The service is part of a large franchise with more than 170 branches located across England. At the time of the inspection, the provider reported there were 22 people who used the service and 33 staff.
At the time of the inspection, there was a registered manager. 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 location was previously inspected twice under the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. These inspections occurred on 19 February 2013 and 8 January 2014. At both prior inspections, the location was compliant with the outcomes that we inspected.
People received safe care from the service. The staff knew what abuse was, how to safeguard people in the event of suspected abuse and what organisations needed to be contacted. People had risk assessments, care plans and regular evaluation of their care to ensure their safety. Staffing deployment was satisfactory and calls were not cut short, missed and support workers fully utilised all available time at people’s houses. People were assisted with medicines out of pre-packaged blister packs from the local pharmacy, or independently managed their own medicines.
The service was effective in the care it provided to people. All staff undertook an extensive induction programme and experienced staff attended necessary training to ensure they could provide the best personal care for people. All staff received regular supervisions with the registered manager and were able to set and achieve their own employment goals. Performance reviews were conducted annually with six monthly reviews. Recruitment and selection of any staff member was robust and ensured safety for people who used the service. Consent was always gained from people before care was commenced and people’s right to refuse care was respected.
We found staff at Home Instead Senior Care were overwhelmingly caring, compassionate and committed to their roles. People we spoke with and feedback taken from our own survey and the provider’s surveys demonstrated people rated the care outstanding and would not hesitate to recommend the service to others. Staff often went beyond their role expectations to fulfil people’s preferences, prevent social isolation and ensure people had the chance to pursue their hobbies or favourite interests. Staff did not need to rely on the contents of care documentation to know the people they cared for, and were able to tell us this from their experience of looking after them. However all care documentation we viewed was up-to-date and fully completed. The staff told us they respected people’s privacy and dignity, and ensured that life in their homes was as close as possible to being independent. People were able to say how they liked their care, and the service would accommodate their requests every time.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. People and relatives had the ability to share their compliments, concerns and complaints in an open and transparent manner by communicating directly with the staff. People told us they would speak to office staff or the managers if they had a concern or complaint, but never had the requirement to do so. People also told us there was good communication from everyone who worked at the service, especially when something different needed to occur in exceptional circumstances.
People, relatives and staff we surveyed and spoke with felt the leadership of the service was outstanding. They told us they felt a personal connection with the service and the people who oversaw the functioning of the care provision. The service had a very strong connection and presence in the communities where care was delivered. The service organised community events for people to attend in an effort to combat social isolation. The nominated individual spoke at local meetings about age-related matters and received complimentary feedback about involvement. The service maintained further links in the adult social care sector by embracing the use of social media. People and others had a regular opportunity to provide feedback about the service and have a voice in the model of care. Relatives and staff were also routinely surveyed and asked for their opinions about improvements the service could make. Robust auditing of care and processes was undertaken by the registered manager in additional to independent auditing by third party organisations. This ensured the service was transparent, accountable and willing to make changes when needed.