Archived: Homesdale Domiciliary Care Agency

Homesdale Domiciliary Care Agency is domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 3 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. All the people using the service live in an extra care housing complex.

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

People expressed satisfaction with the care and support they received. This was summed up by one person who said, “We are happy with them.”

The provider had systems in place to protect people from abuse and people told us they felt safe. Risk assessments were in place to help minimise risks people faced. Infection control measures were in operation and the service had procedures about the safe administration of medicines. There were enough staff employed to support people and checks were carried out on staff to verify they were suitable to work in the care sector. Steps were taken to learn lessons if things went wrong.

Assessments of people’s needs were carried out prior to the provision of care to determine if the service was able to meet those needs. Staff undertook regular training and had one to one supervision with their manager. People were supported to eat and drink what they chose. 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.

People told us staff were caring and respectful. Staff had a good understanding of how to support people in a way that promoted their privacy, dignity and independence. The service worked to meet people’s needs in relation to equality and diversity issues.

Care plans were in place which set out how to support people in a personalised manner. People had been involved in planning their care. There was a system in place for responding to complaints and people knew who they could complain to. End of life care plans were in place for people.

People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager, saying they found them to be approachable and easily accessible. Systems were in place for monitoring and reviewing the quality of care and support provided. The provider worked with other agencies to develop knowledge and share best practice.

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

Rating at last

The last rating for this service was good (published 11 August 2017).

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.

At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

The service provides personal care to people in the London borough of Redbridge in a charity run sheltered accommodation scheme. On the day of our visit there were three people using the service for personal care.

On the day of our visit a registered manager was in place. 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 told us they felt safe, secure and trusted the staff that supported them. Staff had attended safeguarding training and were able to recognise and report any allegations of abuse. They were aware of the risk assessments in place to protect people from avoidable harm.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and that their wishes were respected. We found care plans to be person centred and reflective of people’s current social and religious preferences. They were reviewed regularly and detailed people’s physical and emotional support preferences.

There was an effective complaints procedure that was understood by staff and people who used the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were enough experienced staff to support people. People told us staff came at the requested time and that there were no missed visits.

Staff underwent robust recruitment checks and a comprehensive induction when they began to work at the service. They received mandatory training and any specific training including the MCA 2005. In addition they received annual appraisal and regular supervision to ensure they developed and kept up to date with practice.

People, staff and relatives thought the service was well run by an approachable registered manager and told us they would not hesitate to raise and concerns. The management ensured the quality of care delivered was monitored and improved.

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.

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

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People's care files contained risk assessments which provided guidance to staff on action to take to keep people safe. Staff were experienced and had attended training in areas such as first aid, moving and handling and fire safety. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity act 2005 and were aware of adult safeguarding procedures.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service and their relatives were involved in the assessment of needs and review of care plans. People were supported to live independently in their homes. Appropriate support that reflected and met people's needs was provided by various agencies.

Is the service caring?

There were systems in place to review people's needs. People told us that staff listened and communicated well with them. We noted staff were rarely missed visits or ran late. People told us staff always completed tasks.

Is the service responsive?

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of people. People stated that they could talk to people and their queries were responded to immediately. The manager told us that staff were flexible and available to provide extra care and support that might be needed by people.

Is the service well-led?

The provider carried out monthly visits and spoke with staff and people who used the service. The service had sufficient number of experienced and trained staff who were managed by a registered manager. Staff had regular supervision and the manager had developed a system for gathering people's feedback about the quality of the service.

People told us that they received the care that they needed and that the care workers were "first class." They told us that care workers knew how to help them and were kind. People told us they felt safe when the care workers visited them and if they had concerns they would speak with a family member, friend or somebody from the office. The service had appropriate staff recruitment procedures. People said they were asked for their views about their care and treatment and their feedback was listened to and acted upon.

One person said "you can't fault them they are all really lovely." Another said "very satisfied often the care workers go beyond their call of duty."