Home Sweet Home Care Agency Ltd

Updated 17 March 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 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.

This inspection took place on 30 January 2018 and 1 February 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and telephone calls to people and their relatives who use the service were made by one 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.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events such as accidents or incidents, which the provider is required to send us by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIR was submitted within the required timescale.

We visited the office location on 30 January 2018 and spoke with the registered manager, the nominated individual, one senior care worker and five care workers. We visited three people who used the service in their own homes. Telephone calls to people and their relatives were made on 1 February 2018. We spoke with 11 people who provided feedback about the service they received.

The care records for three people who used the service were looked at. We also looked at other important documentation relating to people who used the service such as incident and accident records and medication administration records. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, actions were taken in line with the current legislation.

A selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service was looked at. This included four staff recruitment files, training records, staff rotas, minutes of meetings with staff, complaints and quality assurance audits.

After the inspection, we contacted thirteen professionals who visit people who use the service to seek their views and opinions, none of whom provided feedback.

Updated 17 March 2018

Our inspection of Home Sweet Home Care Agency Limited took place on 30 January 2018 and 1 February 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of the service since registering with us on 25 October 2016. The service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older people, younger adults, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, people with physical disabilities and people living with dementia. At the time of our visit the service provided personal care to 41 people.

The company director was also the registered manager for the service. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

The ‘nominated individual’ undertook a management role at the service and was present at the time of inspection. A nominated individual is a person named as the main contact for an organisation.

There was a positive culture within the service; people were treated with dignity and respect. People’s care plans showed that there was a strong commitment to person centred care and risks to people were assessed and managed. People were supported to make their own decisions; this was encouraged and reflected in their care plans. Care plans demonstrated that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 had been applied.

Staff had access to training and plans to enhance the training provision were in place. The registered manager carried out competency checks and spot checks to ensure staff were competent in the role they were carrying out. However, the provider was unable to evidence that all staff had undertaken medication training and competency checks. Records in this area required improvement to ensure all staff were competent to administer medicines.

Staff understood what action to take to safeguard people from abuse; however, they required further training in this area. This training had already been arranged by the provider.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were catered for. Staff supported people with their choice of meals and care plans contained information about people's dietary preferences.

The management completed investigations into incidents and accidents. Investigations were thorough and comprehensive and lessons learned were reflected upon and recorded. This meant that the likelihood of future similar incidents was reduced.

People were protected from the risks of infection through the provision of personal protective equipment.

There was a complaints procedure in place which allowed people to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the service they received. There were no active complaints at the time of the inspection.

There was a range of quality audits in place completed by senior care staff, the registered manager and the manager. These were up to date and completed on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. All of the people we spoke with told us they felt the service was well-led and that they felt listened to and could approach management with concerns.