We carried out a review of the data available to us about Homecare Domiciliary and Domestic Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Homecare Domiciliary and Domestic Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
Risks associated with people’s care and support had been identified and actions taken to minimise risks. Staff we spoke with confirmed they had received training in safeguarding and knew what action to take if they felt people were being abused. The provider had a safe recruitment process in place and staff were recruited in line with this. Accidents and incidents were analysed, and trends and patterns were identified. Medicines were managed in a safe way; monthly audit of medication administration records were completed, and staff told us they received training in the safe handling of medicines.
People’s needs were assessed, and care was delivered in line with their preferences and choices. Staff received support, induction and training to ensure they had the skills to do their role. Staff were complimentary about the management team and felt they were very supportive. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy and balanced diet in line with their dietary requirements. People had access to healthcare professionals.
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 we spoke with told us how they respected people and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained. People were involved in the planning of their care and were able to make decisions about the care and support they received.
Care plans were organised and easy to follow detailing people’s needs and how these were to be met. People who used the service had access to a complaints procedure and were encouraged to make complaints where required. Complaints were followed up and responded to in line with the providers policy.
The management team were committed in providing a high level of care to people who used the service. Care was planned in a way that promoted people’s independence. People who used the service had the opportunity to express their views and actions were taken to address issues raised. The provider had a range of audits in place to monitor the service delivery and to ensure a high standard of care was maintained.
Rating at last inspection: Good (Published 6 December 2016)
Why we inspected: This scheduled inspection took place based on previous rating.
Follow up: Ongoing monitoring.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
We carried out this inspection on 17 October 2016. It was an announced inspection, which meant the provider knew we would be visiting. This was because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to talk with us.
At our last inspection on 20 January 2014, we found that the service was meeting all standards assessed. It was compliant with the regulations and no concerns were identified.
A registered manager was in post. 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.
Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. They had undergone a comprehensive induction programme and, where necessary, had received additional training specific to the needs of the people they were supporting. Communication was effective and regular meetings were held to discuss issues and share best practice. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and spoke enthusiastically about the work they did and the people they cared for.
The provider had detailed policies and procedures relating to medicines management. Staff understanding and competency regarding the management of medicines was subject to regular monitoring checks and medicines training was updated appropriately.
Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service and used effective systems for gaining consent. Individual care plans, based on a full assessment of need, were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. This helped ensure that personal care was provided in a structured and consistent manner. Risk assessments were also in place to effectively identify and manage potential risks.
Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.
Systems were in place to effectively monitor the safety and quality of the service and to gather the views and experiences of people and their relatives. The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s changing needs and any issues or concerns raised. People and their relatives told us they were confident that any concerns they might have would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.
Each person received an assessment of their care needs, including any risks associated with their care provision. People consented to the care that was provided, in accordance with their wishes.
People using the service told us they felt well cared for by a reliable staff team. They said staff attended all of their scheduled visits and delivered the care and support they were supposed to.
We saw that care was provided by trained staff who knew the needs of people well. One person using the service told us, 'The staff know what they are doing. I never have any worries about how they look after me.'
The service had a system in place to obtain people's feedback about their care and experiences. People told us they had the opportunity to feedback to the provider about their care and experiences, and had no complaints to raise. One person said, 'They came and asked me about how happy I was. It's nice that they are interested and listen to you.'
Another person told us that their relative had been interviewed by someone from the company about dignity and their care. The same person said that they liked to know if the carer was going to be late and had asked that they could always be informed. They told us that the carers were usually on time and that the office now called to inform them if they were going to be late.
Everyone we spoke to said they were treated with dignity and respect and that they found the service very good.
The majority of the people we spoke with had been with the agency for a while, and were very happy with the care they received.' We were told 'the office keeps in good contact with them and they would contact them if they had any complaints.' We were told they had a care plan and someone from the agency had been to see them before the carer came to look after them.