Archived: Thamesfield at Home

Updated 10 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.

The inspection took place on 20 October 2015. Two inspectors carried out this inspection.

Before the inspection, we had asked the provider to complete 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. The provider had returned the PIR.

We looked at the PIR and all the information we had gathered about the service. This included any relevant information received and ‘notifications’. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the provider must tell us about.

During our inspcetion we spoke with three people using the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, regional manager, domiciliary care service (DCS) lead and two care staff members.

During our inspection we examined a sample of records including six people’s care plans, four staff recruitment and induction records, training and supervision records, complaints records and audits.

Updated 10 December 2015

The inspection took place on 20 October 2015 and was announced, namely the provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit. We gave the service 48 hours' notice as it is a domiciliary service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to assist us with our inspection.

The service had last been inspected on 11 November 2013. The service met all our regulatory standards at that time.

Thamesfield at Home is a domiciliary care service based within an apartment complex. It is a part of a retirement village comprising privately owned apartments and a care home in Henley on Thames. There were 18 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff were trained in safeguarding procedures, that is ways of protecting people who use care services from abuse. Staff members were confident that if they reported any concerns about people’s safety, health or welfare to the team lead or to the registered manager, these would be acted upon immediately.

There was a sufficient number of staff to support people safely and effectively. Thorough recruitment practices and appropriate pre-employment checks ensured that staff were of a suitable character to care for people. Each staff member had undergone a comprehensive induction and took part in on-going training to enhance their skills and qualifications. Staff were also supported regularly through supervisions and spot check observations were carried out on their practices.

If their assessed needs and care plan required this, people were prompted by staff to take their medicines. They were also supported to see health care professionals when needed, and received appropriate healthcare to maintain their well-being.

Management and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides the legal framework for acting and making decisions on behalf of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The MCA also requires that any decisions made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity, are made in the person's best interests. People were able to make decisions concerning everyday aspects of their lives themselves, which helped them maintain their independence.

People described staff as kind and responsive to their needs. They were confident that their privacy and dignity were respected at all times. People told us that they had developed positive relationships with staff.

Care plans were reviewed regularly on a monthly basis and, if people’s needs changed, these reviews were used to amend care provisions accordingly. Staff were familiar with the contents of people’s care plans and knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities. Risk assessments were in place; they provided information about how to reduce various kinds of risk to people.

The service had a complaints policy in place. People who used the service were made aware of the complaints procedure. They told us they knew how to make a complaint and who to complaint to, should such a need arise.

We saw that staff were provided with supervisions and appraisals regularly and they felt supported by management to perform their role.

People were given opportunity to contribute to enhancing the service they received by providing feedback on its functioning at residents’ meetings. There were appropriate quality assurance procedures in place to check the quality of care people received.