We carried out a review of the data available to us about Agincare UK Bridport on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Agincare UK Bridport, you can give feedback on this service.
Agincare UK Bridport is a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care to 78 people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older people and younger adults some of whom have a physical disability, learning disability, sensory impairment or dementia.
Not everyone using Agincare UK Bridport receives 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 had a registered manager in post. 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 received their care and support at their agreed time, and received rota’s letting them know who would be visiting them. They told us that they were supported by familiar staff, who they had got to know and saw regularly. At the time of the inspection, staff told us they were working additional hours to support a number of vacant hours.
Arrangements were in place to identify and manage risk appropriately. Risk assessments were monitored to keep people safe whilst promoting people’s independence and rights to make their own decisions.
General environmental risks to people were assessed such as fire safety and home security. People also had personalised risk assessments to reduce risks associated with things such as their skin integrity, medicines and health conditions or dementia.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people received their agreed support on time. People told us they were happy with the support they received, including when two members of staff should be supporting them.
People were supported by staff who had received safeguarding training and knew how to keep people safe from harm or abuse. People were supported to understand what keeping safe meant, but staff also respected their right to make decisions that may not keep them safe.
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 received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Staff understood the importance of infection prevention and control, and wore protective equipment appropriately when supporting people. Learning from accidents and incidents was analysed and shared with the team to reduce the chance of them happening again.
People were supported by staff who had an induction and an on going programme of training. Training covered mandatory topics and areas specific to people’s needs such as diabetes and end of life care.
Initial assessments were completed with people to establish whether the service would be able to meet their presenting needs. From the initial assessment a care plan was drawn up to show how people’s needs would be met by the service. People told us they had been involved in their assessments. One person told us, “I have been fully involved in my care plan.” When people’s needs changed the support was amended to reflect this.
People felt the service listened to them and made changes to support their requests. A complaints process was in place and people told us they would be happy to raise a complaint if they needed to. Complaints had been resolved in line with the provider’s policy.
Staff consistently demonstrated a kind and caring approach towards people. People’s privacy and dignity was supported at all times. People were supported by staff who were respectful and knew them well. People were encouraged to maintain their independence.
People we spoke with were very complimentary about the service and felt it was well led. The registered manager led by example, including working alongside staff. Staff felt included and encouraged to contribute their views and ideas.
The service worked alongside other providers in the local area. They understood the importance and benefits to people of working closely with health professionals and did this to help maintain people’s health and well-being. The registered manager told us they had established and maintained good working relationships with district nurses, GPs, learning disabilities and social work teams.
Quality assurance measures were in place and used to identify gaps and trends. There was a clear vision to deliver high quality care and support. The provider kept the day to day culture of the service under review, to ensure the attitude and behaviour of their team remained positive. Staff told us they were proud to work for the service and people told us they remained happy with the support they received. The registered manager told us, “I run a transparent branch, not without its issues, we’re not perfect, but always looking at lessons learned and ways of improving quality and services”.