Archived: Eagles Community Support

Eagles Community Support provides personal care support to people in their own home. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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. At the time of our inspection 1 person was receiving support with their personal care.

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

People received personalised support which met their needs. They received support from consistent care workers who knew them well and how they liked to be supported. 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 supported people to engage in activities that they liked and had an interest in. Staff protected people from the risk of abuse. They were respectful of people’s protected characteristics and people received support free from discrimination.

Staff completed regular training on a range of topics to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in line with best practice guidance. Staff felt well supported in their role with good access to the management team.

There were systems in place to review the quality of care delivery and make any changes required to ensure people received high quality care. The registered manager liaised with other social care providers to share best practice and focus on continuous improvement.

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 7 November 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and the time passed since last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

This inspection took place on 10 October 2018. At our last inspection of the service in April 2016 we rated the service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’. 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, one person was using the service. Although the numbers of people using the service had not significantly increased since our last inspection, the provider was able to provide an explanation for this and was confident that the service would grow in the future. They were building relationships with local authority commissioning teams to raise the profile of the service to support them to do this.

The provider had consistently maintained the service to the standard we found at our last inspection. The service continued to provide care and support that was personalised and tailored to people’s needs. The person using the service received support that had been planned and agreed with them. Their choices for how support was provided were respected and staff delivered this in line with the person’s wishes.

Staff supporting the person knew them well, understood their needs and how these should be met. They encouraged the person to be involved in aspects of their personal care to promote their independence. Staff treated the person with respect and maintained their dignity and privacy when providing support.

Staff supported the person to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. Records made by staff after each scheduled visit helped to keep other staff and the person’s relative informed and up to date about the support provided to the person. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the person’s healthcare needs and how they should be supported with these in a timely and appropriate way.

Staff were trained to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report any safeguarding concerns about people to the appropriate person and agencies. Staff understood the risks posed to the person and followed current guidance about how these should be minimised to keep them safe from injury or harm. Staff followed good practice to ensure risks were minimised from poor hygiene and cleanliness when providing personal care and when preparing and handling food.

There were enough staff to meet the person’s needs. The provider maintained a robust recruitment and selection process and carried out appropriate checks to verify staff's suitability to support people. Staff received relevant training and had work objectives that were focussed on people experiencing good quality care and support. These were monitored and reviewed through regular supervision.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and supported the person in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review the quality of service and to deal with any complaints made about the service. Records relating to the person, staff and to the management of the service were accurate and up to date.

The service continued to have a registered manager in post. The registered manager was aware of their registration responsibilities particularly with regards to submission of statutory notifications about key events that occurred at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Eagles and Shofar Homecare Support is a small domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there was one person receiving personal care from this service, which they were funding directly.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe when receiving care and support from the service. Staff knew how to protect people if they suspected they were at risk of abuse or harm. They had received training in safeguarding adults at risk and knew how and when to report their concerns if they suspected someone was at risk of abuse. There was a procedure in place for all staff to follow to ensure concerns were reported to the appropriate person and authorities.

There were appropriate plans in place to ensure identified risks to people were minimised. Staff had a good understanding of the specific risks to people and what they should do to minimise these to keep safe particularly when they received care and support.

There were enough suitable staff to care for and support people. The registered manager planned staffing levels to ensure there were enough staff to meet the needs of people using the service. They carried out appropriate checks on staff to ensure they were suitable and fit to work for the service. Staff received relevant training to help them in their roles. They were supported by the registered manager and provided with opportunities to share their suggestions about how people’s experiences could be improved.

People and their relatives were involved in planning the care and support they needed. Staff had access to information about how people wished to communicate to help them understand what people wanted or needed in terms of their care and support. There was good information for staff on how people's care and support needs should be met. People’s support plans reflected their specific needs and preferences for how they wished to be cared for and supported. Staff knew people well and what was important to them in terms of their needs, wishes and preferences. People’s needs were reviewed regularly by the registered manager to check for any changes to these.

People were encouraged to eat and drink sufficient amounts and supported to keep healthy and well. Staff ensured people were able to promptly access healthcare services when this was needed. They made sure people received their prescribed medicines promptly.

Staff ensured that people’s right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was respected. They knew how to provide care and support in a dignified way and which maintained people’s privacy at all times. Information about people was kept securely. Staff were prompted to encourage people to do as much for themselves as they could. They only stepped in when people could not manage tasks safely and without their support.

People were satisfied with the support they received from the service. They knew how to make a complaint about the service. The provider had arrangements in place to deal with any concerns or complaints people had in the first instance. However people were not given the right information about how they could take their complaint further. The registered manager was taking action to rectify this.

The provider promoted a culture within the service that was open and transparent. People, relatives and staff were provided with opportunities to share their views about the quality and standards of the service. The registered manager had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities. They carried out unannounced spot checks, quality visits and reviews of the service to assess the quality of care and support people received.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff received training in the MCA so they were aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to the act. Records showed people’s capacity to make decisions about aspects of their care was considered when planning their support. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions there was involvement of their relatives to make these decisions in people’s best interests.