Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 30 March 2018

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 was 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.

The inspection was carried out over two days 22 & 24 January 2018. We gave the provider notice of the inspection in order to ensure people we needed to speak with were available and to arrange consent for visits and telephone calls we made. The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We reviewed the information we held about the service before we carried out the visit. Prior to the inspection the provider had submitted a Provider Information Return (PIR) to us. The PIR is a document the provider is required to submit to us which provides key information about the service, and tells us what the provider considers the service does well and details any improvements they intend to make.

At the time of the inspection the agency was supporting 33 people who required personal care. We contacted eight people who used the service to seek their views about the agency. This included meeting three people in their own home and making phone calls to the others. We also spoke with three family members. The inspection was conducted with the registered manager and the nominated individual for the organisation. We spoke with two training officers and four members of the care team. We received feedback from two health care professionals following our inspection.

We viewed a range of records including, care documents for four people who used the service, three staff personnel files, medicine records, records relating the running of the service and a number of the provider’s policies and procedures.

Updated 30 March 2018

The inspection took place over two days on 22 & 24 January 2018 and was announced. We announced the inspection at short notice because we needed to ensure managers were available when we visited and also to arrange consent from people to carry out visits and telephone calls.

The last inspection was carried out in May 2015 and was rated as ‘Good’ at that time.

Home Instead Senior Care is a registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide ‘personal care’ to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. Home Instead Senior Care office base is located in Liverpool, Merseyside. The office building is modern and accessible for people who required disabled access.

At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 33 people who were located in Liverpool and Sefton.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

All of the people we spoke with who used the service expressed great satisfaction and spoke very highly of managers and staff. They described an exceptional service which was very responsive to individual care needs.

Support was provided to people on a flexible basis and in accordance with their clearly identified needs. People who received care and support provided us with very positive feedback. They said they received a reliable service and an excellent standard of support from caring, kind and compassionate staff. There was a consistent staff team and staff were matched to people with the same interests to help build a positive relationship. This was central to the ethos of the service.

The safety of people who used the service was maintained. Staff were well aware of their responsibility to protect people’s health and wellbeing. There were systems in place to ensure that risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were identified and addressed.

Staff had a full understanding of people’s care needs and the skills and knowledge to meet them. People received consistent support from care workers [called 'Caregivers' at Home Instead] who knew them well. People felt safe and secure when receiving care. People were supported with their medicines and staff were trained and felt confident to assist people with this.

Sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people’s needs. Thorough staff recruitment checks were in place. These checks were undertaken to make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff were very responsive to any changes in people’s health or wellbeing and liaised effectively with health professionals in a timely and proactive manner. All of the community professionals we spoke with were very complimentary about the service and reported very positive experiences when dealing with Home Instead Senior Care.

People were provided with care and support according to their assessed need. People gave consent to their plan of care and were involved in making decisions around their support. People’s plan of care was subject to review to meet their changing needs and updated promptly if required. People received effective care that met their individual needs.

Staff told us they felt well informed about people’s needs and how to meet them. Care plans were in place regarding people’s needs and the level of support required. These were highly personalised and reflected people’s individual care needs including social and psychological aspects of care. People were consulted with and felt involved and in control of their care. Care plans were regularly reviewed and people where included in the review process.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare had been assessed and information about how to support people to manage risks was recorded in their plan of care.

The registered manager had a clear knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and their roles and responsibilities linked to this. They were able to explain the process for assessing people’s mental capacity and how they would ensure a decision was made in a person’s best interests if this was required. The service working alongside other health and social care professionals and family members. This helped to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests.

The services training programme was very well developed and provided staff with the knowledge and skills to support people. We saw systems were in place to provide staff support. This included monthly staff meetings, supervisions and an annual appraisal. Staff told us they had excellent support from managers, enjoyed working for the service and were committed to providing a high level of care and support for people.

The service developed and maintained links with external organisations and within the local community to develop best practice and encourage positive attitudes towards disability. Managers demonstrated strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the service. Practical and well led systems of management had been developed to support on-going learning and development.