Home Instead

Updated 3 May 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 announced inspection took place on 13 and 28 March 2018. We gave the provider three days’ notice as they provide support to people in their own homes, and we had to gain people’s permission to contact them. The inspection was undertaken 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. The expert by experience spoke with people on the telephone on the first day. The inspector visited the office location on the second day to speak with staff and review care records, policies and procedures.

We used information we held about the service and the provider to assist us to plan the inspection. This included notifications the provider had sent to us about significant events at the service. On this occasion we did not ask the provider to send a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. 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. However, at the inspection we offered the manager and management team the opportunity to share information they felt relevant with us.

We spoke with nine people who used the service and nine relatives. We spoke with the nominated person, the registered manager, the training coordinator, one of the care co-ordinators and four support workers. We looked at the care files of three people who used the service to see if their information was accurate and up to date. We reviewed two staff file to see how they were recruited and checked information about their training. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service. This included audits the registered manager had in place to ensure the quality of the service was continuously monitored and reviewed.

Updated 3 May 2018

Home Instead Senior Care provides care and support to people in their own homes in and around the Burton upon Trent area. This announced inspection took place on 13 and 28 March 2018.

At our last inspection, we rated the service Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People continued to receive support in a safe way, and staff understood how to protect people from harm. Enough staff were available to support people. Risks to people were managed to reduce potential hazards and the provider followed safe recruitment processes. Where people required support to take their medicines; this was provided in a safe way. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to hygiene and infection control.

People continued to receive effective support. Staff had the knowledge they needed to provide effective care and support was delivered in line with good practice guidance. People’s physical health was monitored and support was provided when required. Where required people were supported to prepare meals of their choice and were enabled to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

People continued to receive support that was caring by staff who were kind, compassionate and caring. People were involved in making decisions about their care and their privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted.

People continued to receive support that was responsive to their individual needs, including their preferences and routines. The support people received was reviewed with them to ensure it remained relevant. People knew how to raise any concerns or complaints, and these were responded to in a timely manner.

The service continued to be well led. The management team were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff felt valued and enjoyed working at the service. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback, and their views were acted on to develop the service. The provider worked in partnership with other agencies and systems were in place to drive ongoing improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.