Home Instead

Home Instead Senior Care (Truro) provides people with personal care in their own homes. 'Home Instead' is an international franchise. This specific agency is operated by Kernow Care Services Limited. At the time of the inspection the service provided support for approximately 41 people, 19 of whom require personal care. The service provided support for people in the Truro area. The service works with elderly people.

The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However a manager had recently been appointed, and an application had been submitted for the person to be registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The service had satisfactory safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff were trained to recognise abuse, and what to do if they suspected abuse was occurring. Suitable risk assessment procedures were in place, and risk assessments were regularly reviewed.

Recruitment checks for new staff were satisfactory. For example, the registered provider obtained a Disclosure and Barring Service check and written reference check when the member of staff was recruited. When staff started to work at the agency they had to complete a satisfactory staff induction, which included relevant training which assisted the member of staff to carry out their job. The registered provider had a suitable system of staff supervision and annual appraisal.

Medicines procedures were satisfactory, and we were told the support people received in this area was good. Staff were trained in procedures to minimise the risk of infection. People and their relatives said staff were always clean and well dressed. Staff said they were provided with disposable gloves and aprons.

There were satisfactory procedures to assess people to check they were suitable to receive support from the service. Subsequently staff developed comprehensive care plans for people and these were regularly reviewed.

Where people received support to prepare meals. Procedures to monitor food eaten and fluid intake, if and where necessary, were satisfactory.

We were told none of the people who used the service lacked mental capacity, and could make decisions for themselves. If people did loose capacity, the service had suitable systems were in place to meet legal

requirements and ensure people's rights were protected.

We received positive support about staff attitudes. Comments included; "Very good," "Staff are very nice," "Very kind" and "Staff are lovely." Staff worked with people to maximise people's independence.

The service had a complaints procedure. People said they would approach staff or management if they had a concern.

Management were viewed positively by the people who used the service and staff who we contacted.

The staff team said they worked well together. People and their relatives viewed staff positively and staff were viewed as caring.

Quality assurance processes were satisfactory to monitor the service was working effectively, and pick up and address shortfalls in service provision.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found