Archived: Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 15 December 2015

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.

This inspection took place on 18 November 2015 and was announced. This is because we needed to be sure that the registered manager and staff would be available. The inspection was completed by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspecti on, the provider completed 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. We looked at this and information we hold about the service. This included the number and type of notifications we had received. A noti fication is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection we visited and spoke with two people in their homes and spoke with 10 people and two relatives by telephone. We also spoke with the registered provider’s representative, registered manager, two care supervisors, a care coordinator the provider’s in house trainer and two care staff.

We looked at five people’s care records, manager’s and staff meeting minutes. We looked at medicine administration records and records in relation to the management of the service such as checks regarding people’s health and safety. We also looked at staff recruitment, supervision and appraisal process records, training records, compliments, quality assurance and audit records.

Updated 15 December 2015

This inspection took place on 18 November 2015 and was announced. This is because we needed to be sure that the registered manager and staff would be available. Lucmont Limited t/a Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service that is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 90 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Staff were recruited through a robust recruitment process. This helped ensure that only those staff deemed suitable to work with people using the service were offered employment. People were cared for by a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff.

Safe medicines administration practice was adhered to. This was by staff who had been trained and had had their competency to do this regularly assessed. Audits and checks of staff’s medicines administration helped ensure that the provider’s policy for this was consistently applied.

Staff had been trained and were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and how people were protected from harm. Staff knew who they could report any concerns to including the registered manager, the local safe guarding authority or the Care Quality Commission.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about the situations where an assessment of people’s mental capacity could be required.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met. Applications had been made to the Court of Protection and the provider was complying with the Court Order.

Staff supported people with their care needs in a way that respected their privacy, dignity and independence. Risk assessments were in place for subjects such as people at risk of falls and self medicating. Checks were completed to help ensure that people’s homes were a safe place for staff to work in.

People were involved in determining their care needs. This formed part of a formal assessment process to help ensure that people received the care they wanted.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals including their GP, community nurse or occupational therapist.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient quantities of the foods and drinks they preferred. People could choose to be as independent as they wanted with their eating and drinking.

Staff received regular support, mentoring and training for their roles. This was through an effective programme of planned supervision and appraisals.

People were provided with information, guidance and support on how to report any concerns, compliments or suggestions for improvement The provider took appropriate action to ensure any complaints were addressed to the complainant’s satisfaction.

The registered manager and senior care staff had effective audit and quality assurance processes and procedures in place. Any actions required to improve the overall standard and quality of care were raised at staff meetings and formal supervision.