Archived: Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 26 May 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.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 5 and 6 March 2018 and both days were announced. We sought people’s permission prior to making telephone calls to them on 7 March 2018 to gather their views and opinions about the service provided. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was older people and dementia care.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that they would be in to provide information we would require as part of the inspection process.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and looked at information we held about the service and the provider, including notifications the provider had sent us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We used this information to help us plan the inspection. We also asked the local authority and the community mental health team for their views about the service. They raised no concerns.

During our inspection we spoke with 20 people who used the service, the registered manager, and head of care giver experience, three care givers, the administrator, business development manager and the training officer. We also spoke with the managing director and director of finance who is also the registered provider.

We reviewed a sample of records that belonged to five people who were receiving a regulated service from the provider, for example people’s medicine records and care records. We also reviewed six staff recruitment records, staff training and development records, records relating to how the service was being managed such as safety audits, a sample of the services operational policies and procedures and the service's business plan.

Updated 26 May 2018

Home Instead Senior Care (Stockport) is a management franchise that specialises in non-medical domiciliary care for older people. The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care, companionship and social inclusion services to people living in their own home.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall. There were no breaches; the service met all relevant fundamental standards.

At the time of our inspection 165 people were using the service. Out of these 51 people were receiving a regulated service.

Why the service is rated Good.

All staff received the training they needed to carry out their roles effectively and were well supported. Care givers had been safely recruited. There were sufficient numbers of care givers to provide people with the support they needed.

The service has a registered manager. 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 were positive about the registered manager and the way the service was run.

People’s care records were detailed and person centred. They identified what was important to and for the person. People were safe because the risk assessments and systems in place to keep them safe from abuse or avoidable harm were effective.

People’s nutritional and health needs were met and medicines were managed safely.

Care givers and management understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people's consent prior to care and support being provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care givers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People told us they were very happy with the care and support provided to them by their care giver. They told us they were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.

People were supported to maintain their independence, interests and hobbies.

The provider had a strict protocol in place that all visits to people were no less than one hour long. This helped to ensure people received safe and effective care in the time and manner they wanted and needed.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and continually improve the service provided. Policies and procedures in place were kept under review.

Feedback was obtained from people who used the service, their families and representatives. There was a procedure to help people to complain if they wanted to. People we spoke with told us they had no complaints.

The provider had notified CQC of significant events and displayed the rating from the last report.