Home Instead Senior Care is registered to provide personal care and support to people of all ages living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 41 people with a range of personal care and support needs. The service also provided companionship and support to a number of other people.
The inspection of this service took place on 22 and 23 February 2017 and was announced.
There was a registered manager in post and they were present at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, registered managers 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 a service that was safe and staff clearly understood how to protect people from abuse and harm. Risks in relation to providing safe support were assessed, documented and well managed.
There were sufficient staff to support people who used the service. The registered manager matched people to the staff who supported them to ensure compatibility and consistency. This meant that people got to know the staff who supported them and trusted them to meet their needs safely and in ways that they preferred. Staff could offer flexible and responsive support that met people’s changing needs in order to ensure their on-going safety and wellbeing. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices meaning that only people suitable to work in the role were appointed.
People who required support to take their medicines were protected by safe systems in place for administering, storing and recording medicines. Training was in place to enable staff to safely support people when required.
People were supported by staff who were well trained and equipped with the knowledge and skills to meet their assessed needs. Training was innovative and bespoke to meet people’s individual needs. The providers and the registered manager were creative in sharing ideas and good practice with others. Staff supported family members by sharing good practice and working alongside them to ensure people’s needs were met. People’s rights and choices were respected and promoted. Staff offered individualised support and people were actively involved in decision making.
People's communication needs were known by staff and different communication methods were used to ensure people were involved in decisions about their care.
People were supported, as required, to enjoy a varied and nutritious diet that met their individual dietary needs. Staff worked with health and social care professionals to promote and maintain people’s good health. Where there were concerns over people's health, specialist input was sought from a range of health professionals.
People were supported by staff who were very caring, kind and compassionate. Staff provided support ‘above and beyond’ their remit and people valued this. People were supported to remain as independent as they were able whilst receiving support and care. Staff also worked closely with family members and promoted relationships with people who were important to people who used the service. This improved their quality of life.
People told us that staff treated them with the upmost dignity and respect.
People were listened to and received a responsive service that met their assessed needs. Comprehensive assessments of need and a thorough matching process meant that staff could be selected to work with a person based on shared interests and values. People who used the service, and their families, were consulted in this process. People received the care and support they required at times that had been agreed with them. They told us that any changes were communicated and staff were flexible if people wished to reschedule their visits. People's changing health and wellbeing needs were responded to. People's individual preferences were taken into account and used to tailor people's care to meet their needs. Care records were detailed and accurately reflected people’s needs.
People told us they were satisfied with the service that they received. People were confident that, should they need to make a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns would be acted upon. We saw how complaints were effectively managed. Staff were aware of the complaints procedure and were confident that any complaints would be taken seriously. The registered manager learnt from incidents, accidents and complaints and made changes to improve the service, if possible, as a result.
People who used the service told us that the service was very well run. People considered that the service’s high standards were reflected throughout and that as a result the quality of care provided was very high.
There were comprehensive systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Audits and quality assurance systems reflected positively on the quality of the service provided. Feedback from people, who worked with the service and from relatives and visitors, reflected the service was currently very well run.
Staff felt supported by the registered manager and provider, and felt a sense of pride about working for the organisation and in its value’s. Staff felt involved and consulted. They all felt part of the organisation and considered their views and opinions were listened to and acted upon.
The providers were committed to continual improvement and development. They were passionate about raising the profile of the service and of the aging process in general. They were active on a number of projects and used community resources as well as local media to do this. The providers and the registered manager were innovative and creative in developing and delivering a service that was underpinned by strong values and reflective of current best practice.