King Homecare

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.

Care was person-centred. People received sufficient food and drinks, and this was covered in their support plan. The service worked well with community healthcare professionals. Care was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requirements. Staff receive appropriate training and support, including supervisions.

There was a lot of positive feedback about the service, from people, relatives, staff and community professionals. People and relatives were involved in the care planning and review. People's independence was encouraged and promoted.

The support plans were individualised and stated what needs the person had and how they were met. Daily notes were good but could include more information about emotional and psychological welfare. There was a satisfactory method for managing complaints, however there were no complaints. The registered manager dealt with concerns when they were alerted to them. The service and staff actively helped prevent social isolation.

There was a good management oversight of the service. There were clear aims and objectives for the service. There were no notifiable safety incidents, but the registered manager needed to refresh their knowledge about the duty of candour requirement and how it applied to the service, including access to a suitable guidance document for support. Work on a continuous improvement plan was ongoing. There were a series of audits and checks in place to determine the safety and quality of the care. There was good effort to engage and encourage feedback from people and relatives. Regular staff meetings were held. There were

good links with the local community and social care professionals.

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.