Background to this inspection
Updated
5 May 2017
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.
Before the inspection, we looked at information about the registration of the service and notifications about important events that had taken place at the service. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We did not ask the service 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.
This inspection took place on 15, 16 and 20 March and was announced with 48 hours’ notice being given. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. On the 15 March we visited the service’s office. On 16 March we visited four people and spoke with six of their relatives. On 20 March we telephoned four people and one person’s relative. This was so they could tell us about their experiences of the service. We also received feedback from a health care professional.
During the inspection we spoke to the registered manager, six care staff, two quality officers, a care coordinator, trainer, and the managing director. We viewed a number of records including ten care plans; the recruitment records of the five most recent staff employed by the service; the staff training and induction programme; medication and safeguarding; service user guide; staff handbook; compliments and complaints logs; audits and quality assurance reports.
Updated
5 May 2017
The inspection took place on 15, 16 and 20 March and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection, as this is our methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. This was our first inspection to the service since it was registered with us on 15 July 2016.
My Life Living Assistance (Canterbury) and My Life Specialist Care Services (Canterbury) provides personal care and support to people in their own homes in Whitstable, Herne Bay, Canterbury, Ramsgate and surrounding areas. At the time of the inspection the service was providing care for 65 people. This included older people, people living with dementia and people with a learning or physical disability. It also provided a live in care service. The service is also registered to provide nursing care to people in their homes, but was not doing so at the time of the inspection.
The service has a registered manager who was available and supported us during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
People felt safe whilst being supported by them. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people. They knew what signs to look out for which would cause concern and how to report them so the appropriate action could be taken to help keep them safe.
Comprehensive checks were carried out on all potential staff at the service, to ensure that they were suitable for their role. People had their needs met by a regular team of staff who were available in sufficient numbers.
Assessments of potential risks had been undertaken in relation to the environment that people lived and worked in and in relation to people’s personal care needs. This included potential risks involved in moving and handling people, supporting people with their personal care needs and with managing medicines. Guidance was in place for staff to follow to make sure that any risks were minimised.
A medicines policy was in place to guide staff. Staff had received in-house training in the administration and storage of medicines and a system was being rolled out to check they had the knowledge and competence to manage people’s medicines safely.
New staff received an induction which helped ensure they had the skills they required, before they started to support people in their own homes. Staff undertook face to face training in essential areas, shadowed senior staff and feedback was sought from people who used the service to ensure they were competent. People said that staff had the specialist skills and knowledge they needed to support them.
Staff had undertaken training in The Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant.
People’s health care and nutrition needs had been comprehensively assessed and clear guidance was in place for staff to follow, to ensure that their specific health care needs were met. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and liaised with health professionals when appropriate.
Staff were kind, caring and compassionate, and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff had positive relationships with people and their family members who they knew well. The service had gone ‘the extra mile’ to support people who were isolated at Christmas, to involve people in raising money for local charities and involving people in discussions ways to improve the service.
People’s care, treatment and support needs were assessed and a plan of care was developed jointly with the person which included their individual choices and preferences. Guidance was in place for staff to follow to meet people’s needs. Staff knew people well which enabled them to support people in a personalised way.
People were informed of their right to raise any concerns about the service and felt confident to do so. When people had raised issues, they said the service had resolved them to their satisfaction.
There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included asking people about their experiences. There was an open and positive culture and staff felt well supported. People said that they would recommend the service to others.