Amily Homecare

Amily Homecare provides personal care to people in their own homes. 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. The service was providing support to 39 people with personal care needs at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe with the staff providing their care. They told us staff arrived on time and stayed the duration of the call. Staff were clear regarding their responsibilities in keeping people safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Medicines were managed safely. The service monitored accidents and incidents to reduce the risk of them happening again.

People were supported by skilled staff who received a comprehensive induction, training and supervision to support them in their role. 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.

There was a strong ethos of supporting people and staff with kindness running throughout the service. People told us that staff were caring and always willing to help. People were involved in decisions regarding their care from the point of assessment and their care needs were continually reviewed. Support to access healthcare was provided when required. People told us staff responded quickly when they were unwell.

There was a positive culture throughout the service which put people at the centre of what they did. People’s opinions of the service were sought regularly and checks were completed on staff performance. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles. People and their relatives told us the management team were accessible and always willing to listen and respond promptly to any concerns or suggestions.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 22 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

The inspection took place on 2 February 2017 and was announced.

The service is owned and operated by Mr Suvendu Seal. Mr Seal is registered with the CQC as the Responsible Individual for the provision of personal care. A Responsible Individual is a person who has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law. Mr Seal manages the service on a day-to-day basis and is referred to in this report as ‘the provider’.

Following our last inspection in March 2016 we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to take action in relation to the supervision of staff and assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided. Following the inspection the provider submitted an action plan to us to tell us how they planned to address these concerns. We carried out this inspection to check if the provider had made the changes required. We found that improvements had been made in all areas and the regulations were now being met. Staff received regular supervision to support them in their role. Quality assurance processes were in place and any concerns identified were addressed promptly.

Risks to people’s safety were identified and control measures were in place to minimise the risk of harm. The provider reviewed all accidents and incidents and took relevant action to minimise the risk of them happening again. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities to keep people safe and were aware of reporting procedures should they suspect potential abuse. People received their medicines safely.

There were sufficient staff employed to cover all visits at the agreed times. Staff received training which was relevant to their role and training needs were monitored by the provider. There was an induction programme in place which included new starters shadowing more experienced staff before working on their own. Staff told us they felt well supported by the provider and could contact them at any time to discuss concerns. The provider had a contingency plan in place to ensure that people would continue to receive a service in the event of an emergency.

The service worked alongside people and their families to ensure they were well matched with the staff providing their support. Relatives told us that staff were caring and enthusiastic in their approach. Staff knew people’s needs and personalities well and supported people to develop their independence. Staff understood the need to gain people’s consent before providing support and worked in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their service starting and detailed care plans were in place to guide staff on how to support people well. Staff were able to describe people’s needs in detail and understood how to support people during times of anxiety. People’s food likes and dislikes were recorded and relatives confirmed staff supported people in accordance with these. Staff were aware of people’s healthcare needs and supported them where required. People were supported to access activities they enjoyed and were consistent with their hobbies and interests.

The provider had a complaints policy which was shared with people and their relatives. Regular feedback was sought regarding the quality of the service provided and any action required was addressed in a timely manner. Staff were involved in the development of the service and felt supported in their roles. There was a positive ethos which was shared with staff and was evident throughout the service.

The service had sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment process were followed.

Accidents and incidents were reviewed by the manager to reduce the risk of incidents happening again. A contingency plan was in place to ensure that people’s care could be provided safely in the event of an emergency.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe and were confident in the staff that supported them. People were safe because staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep them safe from harm. Risks to people had been assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people's individual needs were being met safely.

Relatives told us that staff were competent and skilled in carrying out their role. However the provider did not have effective arrangements in place to train, supervise and provide induction to staff.

People were supported by staff who promoted their independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

People were supported to make choices and decisions about their care. A policy was in place to guide staff in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to access support from healthcare professionals where required. The provider maintained regular contact with health and social care professionals involved.

People told us they were confident to raise any issues about their care and that any concerns would be listened to and addressed. However, there was no complaints policy in place during the inspection. The provider informed us that this had been completed and distributed following our inspection.

Relatives and staff told us that the service completed in depth assessments and responded well to people’s needs. Support plans were in place to guide staff in the care people required.

The service did not have effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

The culture in the service was open, inclusive and transparent. Staff were supported, felt valued and were listened to by the management team.

During the inspection we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.