Archived: Westminster Homecare Limited (Colchester)

Updated 8 February 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

The inspection was undertaken on the 7, 8 and 14 January 2019. The inspection was announced. We gave the service notice that we would be doing the inspection so that they could make sure the necessary people were available at the office when we called. The inspection team consisted of an inspector, an assistant inspector and two experts 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, and their expertise was in the care of older people.

Before the inspection, the service completed 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.

In advance of our inspection we reviewed the information we held on the service, in particular notifications about incidents, accidents and safeguarding information. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We looked at safeguarding concerns reported to us. This is where one or more person’s health, wellbeing or human rights may not have been properly protected and they may have suffered harm, abuse or neglect.

As part of the inspection, we spoke to thirteen people who used the service and nine relatives. We undertook visits to three people who received care in their home. We spoke to staff both in person and by telephone; in total we spoke with seven care staff as well as four staff from the head office team, including the registered manager and the providers operational manager.

We visited the office on 7 January 2019 and reviewed a range of documents and records, including care records for people who used the service, records of staff employed, complaints records, medication, accident and incident records. We looked at a range of quality audits and management records.

Updated 8 February 2019

Westminster Homecare Limited (Colchester) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own home in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. The service supports people in the Colchester area, Harwich, Clacton, Walton on the Naze and Frinton. At the time of the inspection they were supporting seventy seven people.

There was a registered manager in place who was present at the inspection. 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 service had its last comprehensive inspection in November 2017 and we rated the service ‘requires improvement.’ We met with the registered manager and the providers representative and asked them to take action in response to our findings. They sent us an action plan setting out what they would do by when. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider had addressed the concerns that we identified.

Detailed care plans were in place which outlined people’s needs and preferences. Summaries were also available for staff in an assessible format so that they could see at a glance what support was required. The information provided was person centred and people’s care needs were regularly reviewed, and plans amended as required. Staff were provided with guidance about how risks to individuals wellbeing should be managed and steps that staff should take to reduce the likelihood of harm.

There were systems in place for the management of safeguarding concerns and staff were clear about the actions that they should take if they had a concern.

There were procedures in place to guide staff in the administration of medicines and regular audits to check that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed. During the course of the inspection we identified a small number of shortfalls regarding recording and we have made a recommendation about this.

People told us that they received care from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. There were clear systems in place for people and staff to seek advice and support out of hours. A missed call tracker had been introduced to enable the registered manager to have greater oversight of any missed calls and to identify the reasons and any patterns.

Staff had received training which provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals to reflect on their practice and explore how their skills could be developed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink in line with their care plan and their nutritional needs. People had good access to health care support when they needed it. The agency sought advice appropriately from health professionals when people’s needs changed.

People told us that they were supported by a regular team of staff with whom they had good relationships. They described staff as kind and caring. Staff understood the importance of privacy and dignity. Care plans set out what people could do to maintain their independence and how staff could support people to retain their skills.

There was a complaints policy in place and people’s concerns were investigated. People told us that they felt comfortable raising concerns.

Staff told us that they were well supported, and the management of the service was approachable and helpful. Staff performance was monitored to ensure that they were working to the required standards and checks were undertaken on how care was being provided.

There were systems in place to ascertain people’s views about the quality of care they received and regular satisfaction surveys were undertaken.

There were quality assurance systems in place to help ensure any areas for improvement were identified and action taken to improve the quality of the service provided.