Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 14 June 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 inspection took place on 14 and 15 May 2018 and was announced. The inspection was announced so we could ensure the nominated individual was available to meet with us. The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we kept about the service and previous inspection reports. This included notifications of incidents. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern.

During the inspection we used a range of methods to help us make our judgements. This included

talking to people using the service, speaking with staff members, pathway tracking (reading people’s care plans, and other records kept about them), and reviewed other records about how the service was managed.

We looked at a range of records including five care plans, four personnel files, and other records about the management of the service.

Before, during and after the inspection we communicated with eight people who used the service and four people’s relatives. We also spoke with three staff members.

Updated 14 June 2018

We inspected on 14 May and 15 May 2018. The inspection was announced because we wanted to ensure either the nominated individual was available to meet with us. At the last inspection, in February 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we have rated the service as ‘Good.’

Home Instead Senior Care (Truro) provides people with personal care in their own homes. ‘Home Instead’ is an international franchise. This specific agency is operated by Kernow Care Services Limited. At the time of the inspection the service provided support for approximately 41 people, 19 of whom require personal care. The service provided support for people in the Truro area. The service works with elderly people.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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. However a manager had recently been appointed, and an application had been submitted for the person to be registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The service had satisfactory safeguarding policies and procedures. Staff were trained to recognise abuse, and what to do if they suspected abuse was occurring. Suitable risk assessment procedures were in place, and risk assessments were regularly reviewed.

Recruitment checks for new staff were satisfactory. For example, the registered provider obtained a Disclosure and Barring Service check and written reference check when the member of staff was recruited. When staff started to work at the agency they had to complete a satisfactory staff induction, which included relevant training which assisted the member of staff to carry out their job. The registered provider had a suitable system of staff supervision and annual appraisal.

Medicines procedures were satisfactory, and we were told the support people received in this area was good. Staff were trained in procedures to minimise the risk of infection. People and their relatives said staff were always clean and well dressed. Staff said they were provided with disposable gloves and aprons.

There were satisfactory procedures to assess people to check they were suitable to receive support from the service. Subsequently staff developed comprehensive care plans for people and these were regularly reviewed.

Where people received support to prepare meals. Procedures to monitor food eaten and fluid intake, if and where necessary, were satisfactory.

We were told none of the people who used the service lacked mental capacity, and could make decisions for themselves. If people did loose capacity, the service had suitable systems were in place to meet legal requirements and ensure people’s rights were protected.

We received positive support about staff attitudes. Comments included; “Very good,” “Staff are very nice,” “Very kind” and “Staff are lovely.” Staff worked with people to maximise people’s independence.

The service had a complaints procedure. People said they would approach staff or management if they had a concern.

Management were viewed positively by the people who used the service and staff who we contacted.

The staff team said they worked well together. People and their relatives viewed staff positively and staff were viewed as caring.

Quality assurance processes were satisfactory to monitor the service was working effectively, and pick up and address shortfalls in service provision.