In Home Care Chichester

Updated 4 December 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 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.

This inspection took place on the 13 and 16 November 2018. One inspector carried out the inspection with the assistance of an expert by experience, who spoke with people that used the service or their relatives on the telephone. 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 first day was allocated to completing telephone interviews with people who use the service and relatives. The second day was based on site and consisted of looking at paperwork for the service.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications they had sent us. A notification is how providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before our visit we approached the clinical commissioning group for West Sussex (CCG) and healthwatch to receive their feedback on the quality of care provided. Their feedback was used to inform the planning of our visit.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who are supported by the DCA and four relatives. During our site visit, we spoke with one carer, two senior carers’, the administrator, deputy manager, the registered manager and the provider.

We reviewed four people’s care files, four medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, consent to care and quality audits. We looked at four staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.

After the inspection we approached the local authority to receive their feedback on the quality of care provided. We were not provided with any feedback.

Updated 4 December 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 13 and 16 November 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of In Home Care Chichester since it was registered by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 9 February 2017. New services are assessed to check they are likely to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led when registering.

In Home Care Chichester is a domiciliary care agency (DCA) and it provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to support people who require a range of personal and care support related to personal hygiene, mobility, nutrition and continence. Some people were living with early and advanced stages of a dementia type illness or other long-term health related condition. The DCA provides 'live-in' support for people who want care staff available throughout the day and night. Not everyone using the service received the regulated activity.

CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection the service provided personal care to 10 people.

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.

People were protected from harm. Staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse and who to report this to. Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care. The provider had an effective recruitment process to make sure the staff they employed were suitable to work in a care setting. When people were at risk, staff had access to assessments and understood the actions needed to minimise harm. The service was responsive when things went wrong, were open and reviewed practices and had a robust system in place to manage incidents. Medicines were administered and managed safely.

People and their relatives had been involved in assessments of care needs and had their choices and wishes respected, including access to healthcare when required. The service worked well with professionals such as nurses, doctors and social workers. Care and support was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. 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.

People and their relatives described the staff as caring, kind, and compassionate. People could express their views about their care and felt in control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to this.

People were involved in developing their care plans which were detailed and personalised to ensure their individual preferences were known. If a person's needs changed then their care plans were updated.

The service had an effective complaints process and people were aware of it and knew how to make a complaint. The service actively encouraged feedback from people. No one was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection.

The service had an open and positive culture. Leadership was visible in the service and promoted inclusion. Staff spoke positively about the management team. There were quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and those responsible kept things up to date.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.