Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Swindon & Vale of White Horse

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us; what we observed and the records we looked at. There were 62 people using Home Instead Senior Care Swindon domiciliary care agency at the time of our inspection.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was safe. There were procedures in place to ensure that people received their medications safely and that staff were appropriately trained in medicine management.

We found that risks to people who used the service were being assessed and that support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People's support plans contained related risk assessments. These covered areas such as physical health, medication and moving and handling. This meant that people benefited from safe care and support.

We looked at how the service recruited staff. We found that potential employees were being assessed in relation to their suitability, knowledge and experience. The service safeguarded those using the service by obtaining references and undertaking Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks on staff prior to starting employment.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. No applications had needed to be submitted in relation to people currently using Home Instead domiciliary care agency as there were no people currently using the service that the safeguards would apply to.

Is the service effective?

The evidence we saw confirmed there were systems in place to gain and review consent from people or their advocates; and that their decisions were respected. Where people required support to make decisions appropriate others, such as relatives were involved to ensure people's best interests were considered.

We spoke with four members of staff during our inspection. They told us that they felt that they had enough time to meet people's needs during their visits. One said ''Home Instead have a minimum of an hour long visit for everybody. It's great and gives you plenty of time.'' Another told us ''They (the management) try to match the carer to the client and it's one of the things they are good at.''

Is the service caring?

We spoke with six people who used the service and two relatives. They were all positive about the support given by the agency. One person told us ''I've had no problems. She [the carer] does all that I want her to do.'' Another person said ''Excellent; and I don't say that lightly. They are a great help and very willing.'' One relative we spoke with said ''They are fine'' and added that they would recommend the agency to others. Another relative said ''They are on time and doing the job properly.''

We found that staff assessed people's needs and provided appropriate support. Staff supported people who used the service to see health and social care professionals if they needed to.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service and their advocates we spoke with confirmed they felt able to raise concerns when necessary. One told us of the action that had been taken in response to a concern they had raised and stated ''They addressed the issue as soon as I told them.'' Another person said ''I'd just tell them if I had a problem.''

We saw that action was taken in response to audit findings. For example, staff had been reminded at a staff meeting to ensure that medication record sheets were signed by staff; and that activity logs were signed by staff and people using the service.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in post for this service. We found that there were quality assurance processes in place to monitor the service provided. This protected people's welfare and improved practice as appropriate action was taken in response to findings. Regular staff meetings were held and staff we spoke with were happy working for the agency.

The care plans were clear and comprehensive and staff understood the tasks outlined in them.

Staff were able to demonstrate a knowledge of abuse and explain the process for reporting it.

The provider supported staff through training opportunities, supervision and appraisals. Group support was available through team meetings.

People and staff were asked about the quality of the service and an action plan was developed to address any issues identified. One person who used the service said 'We get the kind of service we need from them. We are all happy'.