We carried out a review of the data available to us about Skipton Care at Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Skipton Care at Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Skipton Care at Home operates within the Abbeyfield Independent Living with Extra Care complex,
situated near to Skipton town centre. The service is part of an integrated care scheme providing supported living for people in their own individual flats, providing a 24-hour service. At the time of the inspection the agency was supporting ten people.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of harm. Staff were recruited safely, and people received their scheduled calls in a timely manner. Staff had received medicines training and there were plans in place to introduce assessments of staff’s competency to administer people’s medicines. Where things went wrong, lessons were learned.
New staff were supported and there was a programme of regular training for all staff. Management supervision of staff was not up to date but there were plans in place to rectify this. Staff told us they felt supported/ Communication between the staff team was effective. People were enabled to access other healthcare professionals as the need arose. 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.
Staff were caring and kind. People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff encouraged people to be independent where possible. Confidential information was stored securely.
Care records were detailed, and person centred. Records included information about how the person communicated and any support they may need with this. There was a system in place to ensure complaints were logged and dealt with.
Everyone we spoke with was positive about the organisation and the service provided. There was an established management structure in place who continually monitored quality and performance. Staff were supported and there was clear desire to continually improve and develop.
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 3 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The visit to the agency office took place on 1 June 2017. The registered manager was given short notice of the inspection; because the location is a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available.
This was the first inspection since the agency was taken over by Abbeyfield The Dales Limited in April 2016. Prior to that the service was registered with another service out of area and had been inspected as part of that different registration.
Staff had received training so they had the skills to carry out their role and this was updated regularly. Staff had also received supervision and an annual appraisal; this mean staff had a formal arena to discuss work performance and personal development, in accordance with the service’s own policy.
Observations of staff working practices had also commenced. We found there were arrangements in place to ensure people received medicines at the right time.
Care records reflected the care delivered to people and the care and support they described to us.
Risk assessments had been reviewed to assess identified risk relevant to the health, safety and wellbeing of people. For example, supporting people with their medicines, the use of equipment or support with nutritional intake.
Quality assurance systems had been introduced and further improvements were noted to formalise current checks and monitoring. Staff had a good understanding of what to do if they saw or suspected abuse or if an allegation was made to them.
There was a strong person centred and caring culture at the agency. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The vision of the service was shared by the management and staff team. People had confidence in the service. Staff and people who used the service told us they thought the service was well-led.
Staff told us they worked as part of a team, and that Skipton Care at Home was a good place to work. Staff clearly worked well together and felt proud to be providing care that was centred on people's individual needs.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and provide a regular team of care staff to people who used the service. This will need to increase as the service expands. Recruitment information demonstrated that staff were suitable to work with people who used the service.
People told us the service provided good care and support and that staff sought people’s consent to care and treatment. They told us the staff were extremely caring and respected their choices and decisions. Staff were familiar with people’s individual needs and were able to describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity.
People were supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care or in an emergency. People told us when they raised any issues with staff and the registered manager; their concerns were listened to and were acted on.