Home Instead

Updated 19 September 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 was planned to check whether the provider was 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 was the service’s first inspection since registering with CQC in September 2017. This inspection took place on the 7 and 8 July 2018 and was announced. The first day was conducted by two adult social care inspectors. One adult social care inspector visited people in their homes on the second day of the inspection. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection site visit because we wanted to ensure that someone would be in the office to assist us with the inspection.

Before the inspection we looked at notifications received from the provider. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR), because this was the first inspection since they had registered with us. The PIR is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection visit we spoke with the managing director who was also the nominated individual, the registered manager and eight care staff. We met and spoke with four people who were receiving a service and one relative. Following the office and home visits, we spoke on the telephone with another relative.

We reviewed the care records for six people, including the four people we arranged to visit, as well as records related to the running of the service. We also reviewed records such as staff recruitment and training records, care call rotas, medicine records and records associated with the provider's quality checking systems. We used this information to help us make a judgement about the service.

Updated 19 September 2018

This inspection visit took place on 7 and 8 August 2018 and was announced. This was because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to talk with us.

Home Instead is a domiciliary care service, which provides personal care for adults who live in their own homes. The service caters for older people, as well as those with a physical disability or sensory impairment and also those who are living with a dementia related illness. The home care service is based in Dawlish Devon. Not everyone using Home Instead received a 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. The service currently supports 17 people in the community receiving a regulated activity.

At the time of our inspection 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 very happy with the service and the support they received. People had confidence in the staff who supported them. They told us staff were familiar to them and knew them well. One person said, “They do everything I ask them to do. They are very helpful.”

People told us their care workers were kind and caring. One person told us, “They are all very nice. Lovely girls, they take care of me.” Relatives also told us how happy they were with the care and support their relatives received from Home Instead. One relative said, “I think they have been excellent. They are really caring and have helped mum get through her recovery.”

People told us their privacy and dignity was respected at all times and they were supported to maintain their independence, as far as possible. Records we saw supported this information.

There were enough staff to provide care and to offer flexibility in the service. The registered manager made sure new staff had a full employment history and obtained recruitment checks before employing them. Staff received training to enable them to deliver effective care. They were supported in their roles by supervision and appraisal.

People received a safe service. We found the service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to provide safe care for people. Risks to people's safety were assessed and reviewed.

Staff understood how consent should be considered in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager understood the requirements of the law and what action to take if they became concerned about a person's ability to make decisions for themselves.

People were offered choices in the meals and drinks staff prepared for them. Staff understood people's dietary requirements and when necessary left snacks or drinks for people to have later.

People were involved in planning their care and determining how they wished to receive support. They spoke highly of the care they received and of how staff would assist them with additional tasks if necessary. People's care was reviewed and updated in line with their needs and wishes. Where people could benefit from additional support, referrals were made to other healthcare professionals.

People and relatives told us they thought the service was well managed. People felt able to contact the management team or staff if they had concerns and said they received a quick response.

Systems had been implemented so that the quality of service provided could be closely monitored, to ensure that people were receiving the care and support they required. These were in the form of audits and surveys. Records showed that people had been asked for their views about the service.