Gill Care Services

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Staff told us Gill Care Services was a good company to work for. Team meetings were being held regularly and staff told us they were engaged and involved. Staff had access to policies and procedures. The management team were committed to making improvements at the service and agreed that evidence should be retained which confirmed the actions they had taken. Monthly newsletters were developed and staff had access to a staff handbook. There was a business and contingency plan. However, the contingency plan for the company reflected a care home and not the domiciliary care service. Information was held securely and password were required to access electronic devices. A system was in place to deal with complaints, policy and guidance was available. We saw notifications submitted to the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager told us they would ensure these were available to view in the service as required. Professionals involved in people’s care were complementary about the service.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us it was a good company to work for and they would be happy for relatives to receive care from them. One said, “I would be happy for my family member to use this service. The care is really good.” The registered manager discussed the improvements they had made since our last inspection and their commitment to continue to make improvements at the service.

Team meetings were being held regularly where a range of topics were discussed. Monthly newsletters were developed with a range of information about the service. A staff handbook was in place with information and guidance to support staff in their roles. Staff told us they had, “Seen the staff handbook and read it.” Policies were up to date and contained a range of information to support the delivery of the service. Staff told us, “Policies are in the office and they are accessible through App (Electronic system).”

It was apparent the staff team thought highly of the management team and the support they provided. Comments included, “Oh yes the manager is very very good”, “The manager is very approachable and helpful” and, “I am happy working at the service. The management is approachable, they listen to concerns and are flexible.”

Policies and guidance had been developed in line with legislation. These had been developed in line with a specialist company who provided detailed and up to date guidance. The management team was keen to make improvements. The registered manager agreed it was important to ensure they retained evidence about the actions they had taken.

Staff told us the management engaged and involved them. They told us team meetings were held regularly, they were kept informed, involved and were able to discuss their views. They told us they felt comfortable raising concerns. Comments included, “I really enjoy the staff meetings. We have them once a month, they are really good” and, “Team meetings are done every month. We are kept informed discuss a lot [Such as] the job. We talk about any concerns and we are able to bring [our] views.”

Staff surveys were undertaken. This supported the service to engage and involve staff in its operation and development. The staff handbook contained a range of information to support and guide them in their role. Supervisions and appraisals had been undertaken with the staff team. These included staff development and support in their role. An equality and diversity policy and procedure was in place. This provided staff with information about how to support people’s diverse needs. Minutes confirmed staff were kept updated and informed regularly. Team meetings included notes on staff feedback and views. Surveys had been completed recently for people and relatives. Where people wished, these could be completed anonymously. Policy and guidance was available to support dealing with complaints. A system was in place to deal with compliments and complaints. Records were seen in relation to concerns and the actions that had been taken as a result. There was evidence of lessons learned as result of incidents and investigations.

Staff told us they had undertaken relevant training to support them in their role and the delivery of care to people. They said it was a good service to work for, they were treated well and worked together. They told us, “I am really happy. I think all the staff are. This is a nice place to work”, “It is good team work here. Everyone helps each other” and, “I have no concerns in this area, I am very supported." The management told us they were continuing to make improvements.

Evidence of completed surveys for people and staff were seen. These included feedback about their views. Positive feedback was seen. Regular meetings had taken place, these included notes from the topics discussed as well as feedback from staff with their views.

Staff told us the management team were approachable and were happy in their work. They told us managers undertook regular spot checks in people’s homes on the care they provided. They told us, “Manager is approachable. I mostly deal with [Care co-ordinator] but both are fine”, “Yes, the manager does checks on us at people’s homes. We don’t know when she is coming” and, “Yes I can speak to the manager anytime, she is really helpful.”

Business plans and contingency plans had been developed. However, the contingency plan needed review as it reflected how to manage in the event of an emergency in a care home. The registered manager told us there was a contingency plan specific for the service and said this would be provided, however a second copy provided was the same document. Information was held securely on electronic devices and passwords were required to access these. Paper based records were held securely in the office. Improvements to the way audits were undertaken had been introduced since the last inspection. However, the findings on the medicines audit had incorrect findings in relation to reviews.

People and relatives told us the staff linked in with professionals, where this was required. One relative told us, “[Professional] comes out every week. If the carers are here they liaise.”

Staff and management discussed the involvement of professionals in people’s care. They told us, “We inform relatives of any concerns. Most people have a social worker.” The registered manager said they had good working relationships with professionals involved in people’s care. The registered manager was observed engaging over the telephone positively with professionals about people’s care.

Professionals told us the service engaged positively and raised no concerns about the care they provided.

Records confirmed the service had engaged and involved relevant professionals. The registered manager had developed an action plan following the last inspection. This detailed their plans to make improvements.

The registered manager and management told us they had undertaken a range of improvements since our last inspection to support operation and management. They told us of their commitment to continue to improve. Staff told us concerns, incidents and accident were discussed with the team. One said, “We speak if we have any concerns.”

We saw some statutory notification submitted to the Care Quality Commission. However, the records for this were not available at the time of the site visit. The registered manager provided evidence these had been completed and agreed to ensure records were available to view going forward if these were required. There was some evidence that lessons learned had been undertaken, this supported improvements in the service. Improvements had been made in the audit and monitoring of the service. Audits were being completed regularly and were detailed. However, the audits for covert medicines administration had been completed incorrectly as reviewed, where there was no evidence it had been done. There was a current statement of purpose. This included information about the staffing structure, roles and responsibilities.