G&M Senior Care Limited t/a Home Instead Ruislip & Harrow

The service was led by two directors who were also the owners of the company. They and their management team demonstrated a strong level of engagement with people, relatives and their staff. The provider had demonstrated their aim to be to be proactive and innovative. They put people at the centre of their service delivery.

The provider ensured they supported staff and people using the service well throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. They had introduced initiatives to keep people and staff safe. They had supported staff to create alternative activities whilst people were locked down to maintain peoples' well-being. The provider had arrangements to ensure people received responsive end of life care, if this is required.

The provider had invested in training their work force. The management team had specific roles and areas of interests and kept their learning updated. It was a strength of the service they could train, advise and support care givers to learn the skills and knowledge they required to give quality care to people.

The providers were well supported by the brand Home Instead and they welcomed both external and internal auditing. Feedback received was treated as an opportunity to reflect and further improve the quality of the service for people.

The provider had systems and processes to identify and mitigate the risk of abuse to people using their service. People told us they felt safe with their consistent individual teams of staff who were familiar, friendly and respectful visitors to their homes. Staff understood people's care needs well and people were very pleased about the care they received.

The provider had a safe recruitment processes which checked staff suitability to provide care to people. There was considered careful matching of the staff with people they supported. They took into account their mutual interests and individual personalities to make sure that appropriate and caring relationship could be built between care givers and people using the service.

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.