We carried out a review of the data available to us about Berkeley Home Health - East of England 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 Berkeley Home Health - East of England, you can give feedback on this service.
This service was registered on 4 October 2017. This was their first inspection.
At the time of this announced comprehensive inspection of 23 November 2018, there were 54 people who used the service and received ‘personal care’. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we wanted to be certain the registered manager and key staff would be available on the day of our inspection. We also wanted to give them sufficient time to seek agreements with people and their relatives so that we could visit them in their homes to find out about their experience of using the service.
A registered manager was 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.
Berkeley Home Health - East of England was exceptionally well led. There was visible and effective leadership in an open and transparent culture that resulted in an effectively organised, supportive and well-run service. The registered manager demonstrated how their robust quality assurance systems had sustained continual development and improvement at the service. They were clear about their expectations relating to how the service should be provided and led by example. They were supported by care workers and an office management team that were passionate and fully committed to delivering quality person-centred care to people. Morale was high within the service.
Without exception, people and their relatives were extremely complimentary about their experience of using the service. They were full of praise about their care workers and shared numerous examples of how their care workers consistently provided them with personalised, tailored care in responsive to their needs. They described how their care workers took the time to ensure every small detail of the care provided met their individual needs and wishes and the positive impact this had on their well-being. Everybody we spoke with said that they would highly recommend the service.
People told us that the care workers were kind, compassionate and respectful towards them. They described how they trusted and felt safe with the care workers, who knew them well and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s care records were comprehensive, accurate and reflected the care and support provided. Care workers consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity.
Systems were in place to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, and in relation to mobility, nutrition and with accessing the community. Care workers understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe.
Recruitment checks were carried out with sufficient numbers of care workers employed. They had the knowledge and skills, through regular supervision and training, to meet people’s needs.
Where people required assistance with their medicines, safe systems were followed. Systems were in place to reduce the risks of cross infection.
The service worked in partnership with other agencies. Where care workers had identified concerns in people’s wellbeing there were systems in place to contact health and social care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Where required, people were safely supported with their dietary needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. The service had an effective quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result, the quality of the service continued to progress.