Quality Homecare

We undertook this full assessment due to the age of the previous rating for this service. We needed to make sure that people were being supported safely. We did not find any concerns or ongoing risk at this assessment.

People were supported safely. Any potential risks to people were documented with clear instructions to staff about actions to take if things went wrong. Accidents, incidents and safeguarding issues had been correctly raised. People were supported to move between services if needed for example, for short stays in hospital or respite placements. Staff were safely recruited and received training to enable them to support people, some of whom had complex needs. Home environments were risk assessed, and infection prevention and control processes were in place. People who were supported with medicines, were managed appropriately.

A pre-assessment process was carried out prior to new people being supported. This ensured that needs could be met, and staff had the correct skills to deliver the support required. The service worked well with other professionals to deliver the best care possible for people in their homes. Some people told us that staff lacked some basic skills in food and drink preparation. This had been identified by the registered manager and additional training put in place. Staff were aware of the importance of gaining consent from people and although the service relied on other professionals to complete mental capacity assessments, the service did review people’s capacity regularly.

Care was delivered in a kind, sympathetic and dignified way. People’s privacy was respected and their independence encouraged within the limits of personal safety. Feedback relating to communication was mixed with some people reporting positive and timely responses from the service when issues were raised but others telling us there was often a delay in getting answers when they raised queries. This issue was raised with the registered manager who undertook to review communication processes. Staff reported that the service supported a good work life balance, and they felt supported if they ever needed help either with work related matters or domestic issues that may affect work.

Care delivery was person centred with people’s likes, dislikes and preferred routines being documented and, in most cases, respected. Feedback was mixed relating to care call rotas with some people telling us changes were often made and they were not informed. People had opportunities to provide feedback about the service, but some told us that it took some time before they received a response to matters raised. People were supported with access to other services and with some social arrangements. Staff were trained in end-of-life support and people had been given opportunities to make advanced decisions about their future support.

The registered manager was described as approachable and available to staff when needed. The wider management team also provided daily support to staff as the service was large. Staff were given opportunities to speak up and provide feedback and they told us they knew they would be listened to and action taken where appropriate. Auditing processes were in placeoverseen by the registered manager and any learning from both positive and negative outcomes were shared with staff. The service worked well with other health and social care professionals. Staff told us of an inclusive working environment that supported staff and people from all cultures and faiths.