Thames Homecare Service Ltd

Updated 23 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 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.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. Inspection site visit activity started on 18 January 2018 and ended on 19 January 2018. It included one visit to a person who received support at their home on 19 January 2018 to ask their opinions of the service and to check their care records. We telephoned 20 people who received support and managed to speak with six people receiving a service, or their relatives, to obtain their views. We visited the office location on 18 January 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector, one adult social care assistant inspector and one 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. The expert by experience had experience in caring for older people.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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. The provider completed the PIR. We used this information to help with the planning for this inspection and to support our judgements.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, which included correspondence we had received and any notifications submitted to us by the service. A notification must be sent to the Care Quality Commission every time a significant incident has taken place. For example, where a person who uses the service suffers a serious injury.

Before the inspection we contacted staff at Healthwatch and they had no concerns recorded. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We also contacted members of Sheffield council contracts and commissioning service. They told us they had no current concerns about the service.

During the inspection site visit we met with the registered manager and six members of staff as well as looking at written records, which included five people’s care records, six staff files and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 23 March 2018

We carried out this inspection on 18 and 19 January 2018. This inspection was announced, which meant the registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection visit. This was because the location provides a small domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to meet with us.

We checked progress the registered provider had made following our inspection on 31 October 2016 when we found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were Regulation 9, Person centred care; Regulation 11, Need for consent; Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment; and Regulation 17, Good Governance.

Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of safe, effective, responsive and well-led to at least good. We found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. The agency office is located in Sheffield. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care for 50 people and there were 47staff employed by the agency.

There was a registered manager 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.

The care records we looked at included risk assessments, which identified any risks to the person. They had been devised to help minimise the risks, while promoting the person’s independence as far as possible

Effective systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines as prescribed.

All staff we spoke with understood what it meant to protect people from abuse and what actions to take if they suspected someone was being abused.

The service employed enough staff to ensure people’s needs were met. The registered provider had robust recruitment procedures to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

The registered manager, general manager, and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and what this meant in practice.

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 were supported through face to face training, regular supervisions, appraisals and team meetings to help them carry out their roles effectively.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink meals of their choice where there was an assessed need in this area identified on the person’s care record.

Care records showed people received appropriate input from health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapists, to ensure they received the care and support they needed.

Positive and supportive relationships had been developed between people and staff. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People received personalised care. Care records reflected people’s current needs and preferences. We saw these were regularly reviewed with the person.

The service had a complaints procedure and people told us they were aware of how to make a complaint if they needed to. There had been no formal complaints recorded at the service in the previous 12 months. People and their relatives confirmed they had no reason to complain.

Feedback on the service was encouraged by completing questionnaires with people every three months and through weekly meetings with staff.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance. Some of these needed further development to include local guidance specific to the service.

People and staff told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.