Anna Home Care

Updated 18 March 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 5 March 2020 and ended on 6 March 2020. We visited the office location on both dates.

What we did before the inspection

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We contacted commissioners and a local authority safeguarding team for feedback. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service and six relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with six members of staff including the registered manager, care coordinator, director, care supervisors and a care assistant.

We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We spoke with two professionals who regularly liaise with the service.

Updated 18 March 2020

About the service

Anna Home Care is a domiciliary care service providing personal to 16 people at the time of the inspection.

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.

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

People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of the signs and symptoms that could indicate a person was experiencing harm or abuse. People told us they felt safe and relatives felt their family members were well looked after. People had personalised risk assessments with clear control measures to help them minimise the risks in their lives. The service had a robust recruitment and selection process that helped reduce the risk of unsuitable staff supporting people.

People received their medicines on time and as prescribed by staff that had received the appropriate training and ongoing competency checks. Staff understood the importance of infection prevention and control and had a good supply of personal protective equipment.

Prior to receiving a service, people’s needs were thoroughly assessed with their involvement and, where appropriate, those important to them. People were consulted with and involved in changes to their care plans during regular reviews. Staff had an induction, shadowing and ongoing training. Staff spoke highly of the training they received. People and relatives were complimentary about the skills and knowledge of staff. Staff received regular supervision and spot checks. People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink sufficiently with their likes, dislikes and food intolerances known and met.

The service understood the importance of keeping people healthy by timely contact with health and social care professionals. Where people’s health needs changed staff encouraged and supported people to contact health professionals such as GPs, dentists and district nurses. Health professionals felt people received a good service with one professional commenting, “They are thinking about their clients 100% of the time. If I needed care myself I would use them.”

Staff supported people in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). When complex decisions were required mental capacity assessments took place. Where people lacked capacity to make certain decisions, best interest meetings were held with involvement from relevant people including representatives with the appropriate legal authority. 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.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and attentive. One person said, “They are all very friendly, accommodating. Nothing is too much trouble.” People’s privacy and dignity was supported at all times. People had regular care staff which meant they were supported by staff who knew them well. People were encouraged to make decisions and express their views about the care and support they received.

People were supported in line with their assessed needs, abilities and preferences. People were supported to maintain contact with family, friends and links with the community including attending faith-based services and day centres. Although the service had not received any complaints, people and relatives were confident if they had a complaint they would be listened to and action taken to resolve the issue.

People’s communication needs were known, met and, when required, shared for example when people were admitted to hospital. Staff had received training in end of life care and had received positive feedback about their sensitivity. People were given an opportunity to create advance care plans if they wished.

There was an open, friendly and supportive culture at the service. Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs and worked well as a team. Staff told us they felt supported and listened to by the registered manager, director and care coordinator. People, relatives, staff and health professionals expressed confidence in the registered manager and director. A staff member said, ““[Name of director and the registered manager] are the best managers I’ve ever had. They are there for you.”

There was a good rapport and communication between care staff and office staff. Staff were praised, rewarded and supported to develop professionally. Quality assurance systems helped maintain service quality and identify areas for improvement. This included reviews, audits and spot checks. Regular team meetings gave staff an opportunity to discuss concerns, share practice ideas and discuss care industry developments.

The service had developed and maintained good working partnerships with others to provide good care, treatment and advice to people. This included GP surgeries, hospital discharge teams and social workers. A health professional told us, “I have confidence in the service.”

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 20/03/2019 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the date the service first registered with us.

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.