Archived: Walton Homecare

Updated 20 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 April 2016, when we visited the service's office. We also spoke with people who used the service and staff following our visit to the office. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting to inspect.

The inspection was carried out by the lead Adult Social Care inspector for the service.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed all the information available to us about the service. This included notifications the provider had sent us about significant events and information that was available on social media and the internet.

We received a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We sent questionnaires to 47 people who used the service and received 17 responses. Of the 14 questionnaires we sent to staff, we received eight responses. Community professionals were also sent a total of 16 questionnaires, to which we received two responses. We reviewed all the responses we received as part of our planning for this inspection. During our inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service, three people's relatives and seven staff members, including the manager and the provider.

During the inspection we reviewed four people's care documentation, which included risk assessments and written plans of care. We also reviewed six staff personnel files. In addition we looked at a variety of records relating to the management of the service, which included policies, procedures and records of staff training.

Updated 20 September 2016

The inspection took place on 27 April 2016 when we visited the service's office. We also spoke with people who used the service and staff following our visit to the office. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting to inspect.

The service provided care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 80 people were using the service.

The service is required to have a registered manager in place. 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. The registered manager had left the service at short notice prior to our inspection. The provider had recruited a suitable manager who was in the process of registering with the commission.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt the service was safe. They explained this was because the service was reliable and that they received support from a consistent staff team that knew how to keep people safe.

We found the recruitment procedures that had been implemented by the service were sufficiently robust. This helped to ensure only suitable candidates were employed to work with people whom the service supported.

The provider deployed sufficient numbers of suitable qualified and experienced staff at all times. This helped to ensure people received the care and support they needed, when they needed it. Staff attendance at visits was monitored electronically by the provider to ensure visits took place as planned. No one we spoke with had ever experienced a missed visit.

The service undertook a comprehensive range of risk assessments and ensured staff knew how to mitigate any risks in order to keep people safe. This included where the service helped people to manage their own medicines safely.

People told us that staff knew what they were doing and had the necessary skills and knowledge to ensure their needs were met effectively. Staff told us and records confirmed staff received a variety of training and support to enable them to fulfil their roles.

Consent had been sought from people before any care or support was provided to them. The provider had implemented policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which were followed in practice.

The service worked well with other healthcare services, to try to ensure people's health and wellbeing was maintained and in response to people's needs.

People who received support from the service to eat and drink confirmed they were encouraged to eat and drink healthily. Staff offered to prepare snacks and drinks for people who they did not support with meals and recorded people's dietary intake. When there were concerns about someone's dietary intake, this was raised with the manager who sought professional guidance and support.

Staff knew people well and respected their preferences. The service gathered lots of information about people, their like and dislikes so that care and support was planned to meet their needs in the way they wanted. People told us they were involved in reviewing their plans of care.

The service respected people's cultural and religious needs. People told us that staff always respected their privacy and maintained their dignity.

The service undertook comprehensive assessments of people's needs and ensured they had the right staff in place before they took on any new clients. This helped to ensure that people's needs could be met consistently.

People's risk assessments and written plans of care were regularly reviewed and update in line with people's circumstances, which helped to ensure the service met people's changing needs.

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns with the service and had confidence in the management team to resolve any issues.

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt the service was well-led. People told us that communication from the provider was good and that they were kept up to date with any changes in the service.

Every person we spoke with told us they would, and did, recommend the service to people who were in similar circumstances.

The provider took a hands on approach to the service and had developed good working relationships with all the agencies involved in people`s care.

A range of quality assurance systems had been implemented and were operated effectively. This helped to ensure that people received a high quality service which met their needs and protected their rights.