29 August 2014
During a routine inspection
People told us the office kept them informed if there were any changes to the timing of visits or if staff were running late. We observed this process during our visit to the agency. Everyone told us they knew how to contact the office, within and outside of office hours.
We spoke with three staff by telephone and read the care records of five people. We inspected the policies and procedures and the quality checking systems of the service. The agency had procedures in place which ensured that people employed had the skills and experience to support people who use the service.
An adult social care inspector carried out the inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
We found the service was safe.
Staff told us they had received training about safeguarding vulnerable people. They told us they would report concerns immediately to a team leader or their manager. Policies, procedures and local guidelines were available for staff to follow. People told us staff were "very good" and "look after me well."
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and, where needed, an authorisation to deprive someone of their liberty would be requested. The manager and staff told us they were aware of the recent amendments to the law in relation to DoLS and people's records would be reviewed as required. This meant the provider had ensured that people lacking capacity to consent were receiving the care and/or treatment which was not a deprivation of their liberty.
We found the service was effective.
People's health and care needs were assessed and people had been involved with their support plans. We saw involvement from external health professionals for example, the occupational therapist. We spoke with staff who told us the induction training for their role had been thorough and they had completed their mandatory training which we observed on the training records.
We found the service was caring.
We spoke with staff and found they spoke kindly of the people who use the service and demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs. Staff said they enjoyed working for the agency as "each day was different." Staff were able to say how they ensured people were treated with privacy and dignity and given choices.
People told us they were supported by "good staff" and a carer said it was "nice knowing someone is looking after" their relative.
We found the service was responsive.
People had their needs assessed on a regular basis and the records identified people's involvement.
Staff told us that some people had difficulty communicating although they understood what was said. Staff told us people were able to respond through various means which included the use of signs and gestures.
We found the service was well-led.
People were asked for their feedback. We saw the responses from people and found that all responses were positive. People said the agency provided the service which "met all their current needs."
The service had a good quality monitoring system which ensured the manager was aware of any changes in the service and was able to respond proactively. Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and told us they were supported by their manager.