Royal Mencap Society - Hull Domiciliary Care Agency

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 we found the service remained good.

People continued to be protected from avoidable harm and abuse by staff who were able to identify and follow processes to raise concerns. Staffing levels were safe and recruitment processes helped ensure only suitable people were employed. The provider followed their disciplinary processes appropriately. People were protected from the spread of infection and their medicines were administered safely. Accidents and incidents were analysed to identify patterns and personal information was stored securely.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care and enable people to achieve positive outcomes. Learning and best practice was embedded through supervision and appraisals. People were supported to eat a healthy, varied diet of their choice and were supported to access relevant health care services.

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.

Staff treated people like family and were kind, caring and passionate about the support they provided. People's privacy and dignity was respected and they were supported by a regular group of staff that enabled trusting relationships to be built. Staff communicated with people appropriately and valued people as individuals.

People were supported to lead fulfilling lives through going on holiday and pursuing their interests in the local community. Staff challenged discrimination and people were supported to have pain-free, dignified deaths. Policies and procedures were in place to respond and address complaints.

There was an open and honest culture, new ways of working were encouraged and staff were praised for positive work. People and their relatives were included in the development of the service and the provider worked with local community and organisations.

Staff had received specific training though some training dates had lapsed. Care plans were person-centred but information from reviews was not always included in them. Systems were in place to maintain quality in the service, however, these were not being used effectively. We have made a recommendation about this.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The five questions we ask about services and what we found