28 August 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, and the records we looked at. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions.
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments were in place for things such as the environment, falls and medication. Control measures had been put in place. This meant that people’s needs were met and people were kept safe. People and their relatives confirmed they felt the service was safe. When we asked one person if they felt the service was safe they said, “Very much so.” A relative we spoke with said, “It is written down what the staff should do” they went on to say, “I feel comfortable now, the staff are caring and we feel safe.”
Staff had received training in safeguarding which incorporated aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider told us they would be arranging specific training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw a copy of the Mental Capacity Act procedure which referred to mental capacity assessment forms. We were not able to see any completed forms on the day. The provider told us this was because people had capacity. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.
Procedures were in place for the management and administration of medicine. Care records identified the services involvement with medication. We saw evidence that staff had received medication training. This ensured that people were kept safe and their needs met.
Staff had received appropriate professional development and were able to obtain further relevant qualifications. Staff wore uniforms and carried identification badges. This meant people’s safety was maintained.
Is the service effective?
People experienced care and support that met their needs. People told us how they were supported. The provider told us they worked with other agencies to ensure people’s health and social care needs were met. Records confirmed the service had made referrals to other services such as the occupational therapist. One person said, “We work together as a team.” People confirmed that they were involved in decisions about their care. This meant that people received care in the way they wanted.
Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people’s needs.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by friendly and considerate staff. Staff we spoke with told us how they supported people. People and relatives confirmed staff were caring, respectful and polite. One person said, “It truly is a caring agency, they are very efficient, I am very impressed.” A relative said, “The staff that come in are very friendly and polite, they always ask if there is anything else they can do.”
People’s preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain their independence. A relative said, “The staff come at lunch time and take X for a walk in the village or for a ride in the car, they help X do what he wants to do,” This meant people’s diversity and individuality were promoted and respected.
Is the service responsive?
People were treated with respect and dignity. This was confirmed by people we spoke with. Care plans had been developed that took into account people’s changing needs and wishes. They identified people’s needs and were reviewed regularly or when there was a change in need. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves. A relative said, “We have no problems, it is a good service.”
People told us that the service responded quickly when a member of staff was running late or could not attend a call. One person said, “They are very reliable if they can’t come the lady from the office comes out.” One relative said, “The service is very good, on one occasion the staff could not get here on time, the office rang me to let us know.” People and their relatives confirmed that they were given choices and encouraged to express their views.
People told us they would speak to the office if they were unhappy about anything. We saw a copy of the complaints procedure was available in a pack of information that was supplied to people who used the service. We saw that complaints made were processed in line with the complaints procedure.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. This was confirmed by records we saw. A relative told us that they had another home care agency providing care. They said, “We work in partnership.” Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and had opportunities to raise any issues or concerns. One person said, “They do a lot of in-house training.” People and relatives were very positive about the service and care they received. One person said, “Staff are caring and the service is well led, we have no problems.”
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. People had access to a copy of the complaints procedure. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The service had a quality assurance system in place. Audits were undertaken regularly. The provider showed us a new software system they were starting to use. The software system would allow for improved monitoring, analysis and reporting. This meant the quality of the service was able to continually improve.