Peace of Mind Homecare Services

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 were supported to maintain a healthy diet in accordance with their needs and preferences. The service worked well with other agencies to provide care which had a positive impact on people's health and wellbeing. Staff clearly understood the benefits of supporting people to improve their health and wellbeing through exercise and diet. When people were unwell staff acted promptly to ensure that they received appropriate care and treatment. People were involved in discussions about their care and their outcomes were good. Staff were given an induction in accordance with recognised standards for care staff. Staff told us that they felt well supported. The service was working in accordance with the principles of the MCA. 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 spoke very positively about the caring nature of staff. They told us that they were always treated well by staff and were involved in decisions about their care. We saw a number of examples where staff spoke to people and about people with kindness and respect throughout the inspection. Staff were clear about their responsibilities in relation to equality and diversity and supported people appropriately. People spoke positively about the way in which staff respected their rights to privacy and dignity in all aspects of their care.

We saw clear evidence that people's individual needs and preferences were consistently considered as part of the care planning process. Staff knew people's personal histories and their likes and dislikes. They used this information to hold conversations and to suggest activities. However, it was clear that staff knew more about people and their routines than was recorded in care records. We discussed this with the registered manager who made a commitment to add more information to the records as a priority. Staff understood

the need for effective communication and the service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Staff clearly understood the importance of supporting people to develop and maintain relationships and reducing the risk of social isolation. The service had not received any formal complaints in the previous 12 months. We were told how the service had responded positively when minor concerns were shared. The service did not routinely support people receiving end of life care. However, people's end of life wishes were recorded in care files.

Throughout the inspection the comments and behaviours of the registered manager and other senior staff consistently reflected their commitment to a genuinely person-centred service. It was clear that this had resulted in positive outcomes for people. Each of the staff that we spoke with understood their role and responsibilities. However, it was not clear from records how oversight was provided at the most senior (provider) level. The service placed continuous learning and improvement at the heart of their practice. They made effective use of audits, reports and other forms of communication to monitor and improve the safety and quality of care.