Archived: D & H Community Support Ltd, Main Office Also known as Deacon and Hardy

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on evidence we collected from speaking with people who used the service, their representatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel really safe with my carers. They support me when I'm amongst lots of people when I go out. " The provider had safeguarding procedures that staff understood and used. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected. A person told us, "My carers help me with my personal care the way I want them to." Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. The manager had responded appropriately to concerns that staff had identified and reported. The provider's procedures and monitoring reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The provider had ensured that people received care and support from the same team of care workers. One person told us, "I always know which carer is going to come." People told us that care workers always carried out the care routines that were detailed in their care plans. Staff had received appropriate and relevant training that helped them understand the needs of the people the supported. This showed that people received the care and support they wanted and expected from staff with the right skills.

The provider had procedures in place that identified good and poor practice. Staff received refresher or additional training if their care practice had been identified as falling below expected standards.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure that ensured complaints were thoroughly investigated. The provider ensured that lessons were learnt from complaints and incidents and risks to people were effectively managed.

Is the service effective?

People's care and support needs were assessed with them.. People were involved in the development of their care plans. People's plans included their aims and aspirations. Care plans were regularly monitored. That meant the provider had been able to support people to achieve their aims. People's care plans were kept up to date which meant the people's care plans reflected their current needs.

Staff had received training and support to be able to support people who used the service.

Is the service caring?

We asked one person who used the service and relatives of the two other people for their opinions about the service. They told us that staff had carried out the care routines they expected and had supported them to be as independent as they wanted to be. Staff had either taught people new skills or helped them maintain existing skills.

We spoke with staff who demonstrated that they genuinely cared for and understood the needs of the people they supported. Staff knew what their responsibilities were in relation to identifying and reporting abuse. Staff had received training to understood what dignity-in-care meant in practice. People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and caring.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded in their care plans and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. That showed that people's rights had been respected.

Is the service responsive?

People who used the service and their relatives provided feed-back about the service through three-monthly satisfaction surveys. The provider had responded to what people had said. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were acted upon.

People knew how to make a complaint or raise concerns if they were unhappy. Staff also knew how to raise concerns. We saw that the provider had investigated concerns and had taken appropriate action. This meant people could be assured that the provider took concerns seriously and investigated them and made improvements.

The provider worked closely with other services and agencies to make sure people received specialist support when they needed. The provider had ensured that people had receive the support of health professionals when they needed.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had a system for monitoring the quality of service provided. This relied on direct feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and observations of staff.

Problems that had been identified through the provider's quality assurance procedures were addressed promptly. Opportunities to improve things were acted upon. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff we spoke with were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the aims of the service. Staff were supported through supervision and training and had opportunities to further develop their knowledge and skills. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We saw that people had been involved in all the stages of their care planning and subsequent review of their needs. We noted that people had signed to consent and agree to their initial plan of care, to have their photograph taken, to their financial commitment and their subsequent review of their care plan.

We spoke with a number of people who used the service and asked them their views in relation to the care they received. All spoke with high regard for the quality of care and support given by the staff. One person told us: 'I am really happy. I can tell the staff anything.'

All the staff we spoke with verified before they were employed they had supplied the names of two referees and their opinion had been sort prior to employment. This showed us that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. We saw that all care records, staff files and business files were locked in a filing cabinet within a locked office.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy and contented. One person told us:' They ask me what I want and don't want'.

The care records we saw were personalised and included social care needs and assessments. The care records contained risk assessments related to people's individual needs.

One person we spoke with told us:' I have a telephone number at home and I can call it if I have any issues, but I don't have any'.