Bare Hall Quality Carers Limited

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection visit we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated good.

People, relatives and staff all agreed the service was well managed. However, there was a common consensus that communication between staff in the office and staff providing direct care could be improved. We have made a recommendation about this.

Changes had been made to medicines processes to ensure they were in line with good practice guidance. However, these were not yet firmly embedded. We have made a recommendation about this.

Systems, processes and practices continued to be implemented to safeguard people from abuse and risk of harm. Good practice guidance had been followed to keep people safe. People and relatives told us safety was always considered.

Staff told us staffing rotas were planned in advance to allow them to visit the same people. They said this promoted consistency and allowed person centred care to be delivered.

People told us staff were reliable and always worked the allocated time. They said staff were empathetic and motivated to provide compassionate care.

People continued to receive personalised care which was responsive to individual need. Staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs so care could be provided with support which was individual to them.

People received care which was regularly reviewed and support was based around good practice evidence. Staff were supported with continuous learning to ensure they had the correct skills to provide effective care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Consent to care and treatment was actively sought.

The organisation was currently reviewing technology to increase the effectiveness within the service.

The registered provider was responsive in seeking feedback from people and relatives to ensure people were happy with the service provided. We saw complaints were appropriately responded to.

Governance was embedded within the service and was based upon good practice guidance.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found