Anglian Care Limited - Rankin House

Anglian Care Limited provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and specialist housing. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides a service to older people. At the time of our inspection there were 54 people using the service.

People’s experience of the service and what we found:

The provider continued to develop and innovate to improve services for people. External professionals were extremely positive about the service. The management team understood issues in the local community and worked to address them through effective working with a wide range of other organisations. People and relatives told us the service was well led. The service was exceptionally well managed.

Effective systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service and the providers and registered manager were constantly looking for areas of the service where further improvements could be made for people's benefit.

Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse and knew when and how to report safeguarding concerns to the relevant people/agencies. Risks to people were managed safely.

There were enough staff to support people and meet their needs. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had the appropriate recruitment checks to ensure they were suitable for their role.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received an assessment prior to using the service. People were supported to maintain good health and access services when required.

Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy and people told us staff were kind and caring. A person said, “My [family member] and I are very happy. I have 2 regular carers who have gone the extra mile.”

People were encouraged to give their feedback and views about the quality of the service they received. Care plans were comprehensive with guidance for staff on how the person wanted to be cared for. A complaints process was in place.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 02 August 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

The inspection was carried out between the 28 March 2018 and 8 June 2018. At the time of the inspection there were 45 people who used the service.

At our last inspection to the service in November and December 2015 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.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Excellent arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. There was a positive culture within the service that was person-centred, open and inclusive. People received an outstanding quality service that was flexible and responsive to their needs. People’s and others views about the quality of the service provided was sought and acted upon.

• Suitable arrangements were in place to keep people safe. Policies and procedures were followed by staff to safeguard people and staff understood these measures. Risks to people were identified and managed to prevent people from receiving unsafe care and support. The service was appropriately staffed to meet the needs of the people using the service. People received their medication as prescribed and in a safe way. Recruitment procedures were followed to ensure the right staff were employed. People were protected by the provider’s arrangements for the prevention and control of infection. Arrangements were in place for learning and making improvements when things go wrong.

• Staff had a thorough induction to carry out their role and responsibilities effectively. Staff had the right competencies and skills to meet people’s needs and received regular training opportunities. Suitable arrangements were in place for staff to receive regular formal supervision. People’s nutritional and hydration needs were met and they were provided with drinks and snacks throughout the day. People received appropriate healthcare support as and when needed from a variety of professional services. The service worked together with other organisations to ensure people received coordinated care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

• People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect. People received a good level of care and support that met their needs and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s specific care and support needs and how they wished to be cared for and supported.

• Support plans were in place to reflect how people would like to receive their care and support, and covered all aspects of a person's individual circumstances. Information about how to make a complaint was available and people’s representatives told us they were confident to raise issues or concerns. No-one was currently receiving end of life care.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

There were detailed care and support plans for each person who used the service. Care plans had been reviewed. There was a phone number for emergencies out of hours and a plan in place in case of adverse weather. Care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed quarterly or sooner if a person's needs had changed.

There were effective recruitment processes in place and evidence staff had identity and character checks. Staff had received regular training updates.

A relative we spoke with told us, 'My X feels safe with the staff, they are very kind.'

Is the service effective?

The service undertook assessments with the person who used the service or a relative to identify their support needs. The service was using the skills and knowledge of staff members to provide the required service to meet people's needs.

Staff had received regular supervisions and appraisal's and the staff we spoke with confirmed this. One person told us "I received regular supervision and training updates.' Staff we spoke with told us that the manager was very supportive and organised.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service or a relative had been involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff supported people and advised them, but allowed the person who used the service to make the final decision. A person who used the service told us, "They are very kind to me." Another person said, "The staff are absolutely wonderful, they treat me very well, polite and caring."

Is the service responsive?

The service liaised with other health professionals to meet the needs of people who used the service. People's individual needs had been assessed and staff were aware of their needs. One person who used the service told us, "Sometimes I need to change the time of a visit, the agency were able to arrange this for me." Another person said, "When I asked for an extra visit, they were able to start it the next day."

Is the service well-led?

There were processes to monitor and improve the quality of service delivery and the people who used the service had been provided with information about how to make a complaint. People we spoke with told us that they felt able to raise any concerns with the staff that visit them or with people in the office.

People told us that the care was good and staff were reliable. One person said, 'I'm very satisfied with the care I get.' Another person said, 'I've no complaints.'

We found that there were systems for staff to cooperate with other providers and professionals regarding people's health and social care needs.

The provider had systems in place for the recruitment of staff, for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service.

Anglian Care Limited has office premises which were safe and suitable and we found that there were systems in place for ensuring that records were kept safe and secure.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We spoke with eight staff who told us that there were enough staff.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns they had with staff.