Home Instead Senior Care (Maidstone)

Updated 10 September 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 2 August 2019 and ended on 9 August 2019. We visited the office location on 2 August 2019 and the 6 August 2019.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from health and social care professionals and partner organisations who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We visited two people who used the service and spoke to five relatives on the telephone. We spoke with four care staff and the registered manager, deputy manager assistant care manager and the trainer.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and multiple medication records. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including incidents and accidents, complaints and compliments were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records.

Updated 10 September 2019

About the service

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 24 people with the regulated activity personal care. People receiving support from the service were adults or older people. Some people were living with dementia. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives told us the service was extremely caring and staff went out of their way to provide them with great levels of support. Relatives said, “I think it is an excellent service.”, “I have recommended the service to someone.” And, “They are a refreshing change.” Staff developed trusting bonds with people and treated people with respect and dignity and were kind to people forming close relationships with them.

People and their relatives were at the centre of planning people’s care. This started at the assessment stage where assessments concentrated on the outcomes people wanted to achieve. People were well supported to express their views and make their preferences known. People were supported to be independent there was a strong focus on promoting social inclusion and enabling people to live lead active lives. Treating people with dignity and respect was at the heart of staffs working practices.

Staff were highly skilled and had access to a wide range of training courses which benefited people. Staff were highly motivated and very well supported and had used their skills and knowledge to improve outcomes for people.

Staff were committed to providing people with excellent support with eating and drinking and maintaining a good diet. They had acted when people were not eating well and used their skills and knowledge to support people to maintain or re-gain weight were appropriate. Staff had gone above and beyond people’s expectations to support people to live healthier lives and access the healthcare they needed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff ensured people’s rights were protected.

The provider was committed to delivering high standards of care drive forward improvements. The provider ensured staff were extremely well motivated and regularly went the extra mile to provide excellent levels of support to people.

The provider shared learning with people, their relatives and with the wider community. This meant people were better informed about their choices and the health conditions they lived with. People, their relatives and staff were at the core of quality improvement. The provider listened and responded to suggestions where the service could improve.

The service was safe. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of the risks people faced from health conditions or their environment and provided them with good levels of support. Medicines were well managed, and people were protected from the risk of abuse. When things did go wrong the providers were open and honest and learnt lessons.

Care provided to people was person centred, care focused on people’s preferences and the outcomes they wanted to achieve. When people were supported at the end of their lives they were supported to achieve their end of life goals such as going on holiday or seeing old friends.

Complaints were well responded to.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 13 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.