Saint Andrews Limited Also known as Home Instead Oxford

Updated 7 September 2017

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 inspection took place on 3 August 2017 and was announced. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection was carried out by an inspector.

Before the inspection, the provider completed 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 improvements they plan to make. We looked at information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. Notifications are certain events that providers are required by law to tell us about.

We spoke with four people, three relatives, four care staff, the registered manager and the owner.

During the inspection we looked at four people’s care plans, four staff files, medicine records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 7 September 2017

We undertook an announced inspection of Saint Andrews limited on 3 August 2017.

Saint Andrews Limited provides a personal care service to people in their own homes within Oxfordshire. On the day of our inspection 47 people were receiving a personal care service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People remained safe receiving care from Saint Andrews Limited. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking, which enabled people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely.

People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's G.P's to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those needs.

The service continued to be extremely responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly and the service and staff went the extra mile to improve people’s lives.

The service engaged people with fundraising events for local and national charities and maintained links with the local community. People told us this had a positive impact on their lives.

The service was led by a registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos. A strong team culture existed in the service which included all staff, management, the owner and the provider. Both the owner and provider provided strong support and leadership for the team. The registered manager and staff strived to continually look for ways to the service.