Home Instead (Reading)

Updated 17 April 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.

The inspection was announced and took place on 13 March 2018. The service was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that the appropriate staff would be available in the office to assist with the inspection. The inspection was completed by one inspector.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at all the information we have collected about the service. This included the previous inspection report, responses to a questionnaire sent to people, relatives and other professionals. The registered manager had not sent us any notifications as no notifiable events had occurred. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to tell us about by law.

We reviewed the information we received in response to a questionnaire sent to people who use the service, families and friends, staff and professionals the service works with. People returned 16 of 37 sent. Staff returned 15 of 44 sent, relatives returned 6 of 37 sent and professionals returned three of three sent. All comments received were very positive with one member of staff noting some minor personal concerns.

We looked at paperwork for five people who receive a service. This included support plans, daily notes and other documentation, such as medication records. In addition we looked at records related to the running of the service. These included a sample of health and safety, quality assurance, staff and training records. We looked at six staff recruitment files for staff who had been appointed in the preceding 12 months.

We requested information from 13 people who use the service or their agreed representatives. We received five responses. We spoke with five staff members, on the day of the visit and requested information from a further ten. We received one response. On the day of the inspection we spent time with the registered manager and the provider. We requested information from four professionals, including the local safeguarding team. We received responses from two. We did not receive any negative comments from respondents.

Updated 17 April 2018

This was an announced inspection which took place on 13 March 2018.

Home Instead Senior Care- Reading is a domiciliary care agency. It provides care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity. Approximately 48 of 70 people receive a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. The agency provides a service to older adults.

At the last inspection, on 16 February 2016, the service was rated as good in all domains and therefore overall good. At this inspection we found the service was still rated as overall good but the responsive domain was rated as outstanding.

There was a registered manager running the service. 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.

People, staff and visitors were protected from harm by staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. Staff understood how to protect the people in their care and knew what action to take if they identified any concerns. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and appropriate action was taken to reduce them, as far as possible.

Care staff followed the medication procedure, completed medicine care plans and recorded medicine administration as safely as they could. People benefitted from adequate staffing because the service did not accept a package of care unless they were able to provide staffing to meet the individual’s needs safely. The service followed a robust recruitment process.

People were supported staff who were appropriately trained and well supported to make sure they could meet people’s varied needs. Care staff were effective in meeting people’s needs as described in plans of care. The service worked closely with health and other professionals to ensure they were able to meet people’s needs, as appropriate.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported by a highly committed staff team who delivered care with kindness, respect and understanding. They built caring relationships with people to enable them to meet their needs more sensitively. The service and care staff were aware of people’s equality and diversity needs and endeavoured to meet them.

The service was person centred and exceptionally responsive to people’s individual’s needs. It adapted and changed care packages in response to people’s choices and specific needs. People’s needs were regularly reviewed to ensure the care provided was up-to-date. Care plans included information to ensure people’s communication needs were understood.

The registered manager and the management team ensured the service was very well-led. The provider, registered manager, management team and office staff were described by staff as amazingly supportive, open and approachable. The registered manager and her team were totally committed to ensuring there was no discrimination relating to staff or people in the service. The quality of care the service provided was continually assessed, reviewed and improved.