Background to this inspection
Updated
29 February 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 two inspectors, an assistant inspector, and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
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 two weeks’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to seek consent and make arrangements to speak with people who used the service, their relatives, and staff.
Inspection activity started on 27 January 2020 and ended on 30 January 2020. We visited the office location on 28 January 2020.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since they were registered. We sought feedback from the local authority who work with the service. 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 used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with 20 people who used the service and 11 relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 17 members of staff including the registered manager, the clinical lead, the staff member responsible for audits and quality monitoring, and 14 care workers. We also spoke with two health and social care professionals who regularly work with the service.
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 were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at additional records relating to the governance of the service.
Updated
29 February 2020
About the service
Home Support Matters Poringland is a domiciliary care service. They provide personal and nursing care and support to people living in their own homes. 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 the service was providing a regulated activity to 65 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People using the service were supported with their safety. Risks, including those relating to infection control and people’s environment, were identified and actions to reduce risk taken in response. Information on how to raise concerns about people’s safety were provided to people and staff. Incidents that occurred in the service were reviewed and used as learning opportunities. People were supported by familiar and consistent staff who had been recruited safely. Medicines were managed safely, and people received these as prescribed.
People were supported by competent and trained staff. Systems were in place to ensure staff had the skills and knowledge required to support people’s individual needs. People’s needs were considered holistically, and best practice guidance utilised. People were supported to eat and drink in line with their needs and preferences. Staff encouraged people to consider healthy eating where appropriate. People’s health care needs were considered. Staff were proactive in working with social care and health professionals to ensure health needs were identified and met. 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 were supported in a kind, caring, and respectful manner. Staff knew people well and positive relationships had been formed. Staff appreciated the diverse, individual backgrounds, and social history that people had. Systems were in place to support people to express their views and make decisions regarding their care. Staff had enough time to support people in an unhurried manner. This provided informal opportunities to check people were happy with their care and support. People’s independence was encouraged, and staff were mindful of people’s privacy and dignity.
People received person centred care that took in to account their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives, where appropriate, were involved in planning their care. Staff knew people well and this helped ensure their support was delivered in the manner they wanted. People’s communication needs had been assessed. Information had been supplied taking in to account people’s communication needs. Where relevant staff supported people to participate in hobbies and interests that were important to them. Information on how to complain was provided to people using the service. When concerns have been raised the service had investigated and responded to these. People were supported at the end of their lives. Staff acted to ensure people were comfortable and people’s families felt supported.
Previous issues with poor communication and organisation had, for some people, damaged trust and positivity regarding the management of the service. The management team acknowledged these issues. Work had taken place to improve communication and a stable service to help establish trusting relationships between people, staff, and management. An inclusive and open culture was being shaped. Staff were keen to engage, develop, and work with other stakeholders. There were opportunities for staff participation. Feedback from those involved in and using the service was sought. Quality monitoring systems were in place. Regular audits were carried out on the service to help ensure a consistent quality service and identify issues.
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 25 January 2019 and this is the first inspection.
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.