Home Instead Huntingdon

Updated 20 July 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 between the 18 and 21 June 2018 and was announced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice as the service is small and we needed to be sure they were in. This was also because some of the people using the service could not consent to a home visit or phone call from an inspector, which meant that we had to make alternative arrangements.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least annually. This provides us with information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to assist us with the planning of this inspection. We also looked at other information we held about the service. This included information from notifications the provider sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law such as incidents or allegations of harm.

Prior to our inspection we contacted the local safeguarding organisations to ask them about their views of the service. Their views helped us to plan our inspection.

On the 18 June 2018 we spoke with six people who used the service and three relatives of people who were not able to speak with us. On 19 June 2018 we visited the provider's office and we spoke with the nominated individual. We also spoke with the manager, two office based staff with management roles and a care staff member. On 21 June 2018 we spoke with four care staff by telephone.

We looked at care documentation for four people using the service and two people's medicines' administration records. We also looked at two staff files, staff training and supervision planning records and other records relating to the management of the service. These included records associated with audit and quality assurance, accidents and incidents, compliments and complaints.

Updated 20 July 2018

Home Instead Senior Care (Huntingdon) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It is registered to provide a service to older people, people living with dementia and people with mental health needs. Not everyone using Home Instead Senior Care (Huntingdon) received a regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This announced inspection was carried out between 18 and 21 June 2018. At our previous inspection on 5 and 6 April 2017 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to ensure staff knew how to safeguard people from harm and that notifiable incidents were reported to the Commission. The provider submitted an action plan and said they would make the necessary improvements by date 15 June 2017. At this inspection, the necessary improvements had been made and the service was rated Good. At the time of our inspection there were 29 people using the service.

The service did not have a registered manager. A new manager was in post. Following our inspection their application to be registered was agreed by the Commission. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received a safe service. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. They had received training and were able to recognise any safeguarding concerns. There were safeguarding procedures in place to guide staff on steps to take if they had a concern. The manager used information from accidents and incidents helped them learn lessons to prevent any potential recurrence. The staff recruitment process helped ensure that the necessary checks were completed before new staff commenced their employment. Sufficient staff who had been given the necessary training were in post and they were deployed to keep people safe.

Where risks to people were identified, for example falls, there were risk management strategies in place to guide staff on how to minimise those risks.

Staff were provided with the training and assessed as competent to provide people with support to take their medicines as prescribed. Effective action had been taken to ensure staff administered medicines as defined in the provider’s policies.

People received a service that met their needs. Following an initial assessment people were allocated staff members who had the right skills to meet their specific needs and promote their independence. People were enabled to access health care services and as a result this maintained their health and wellbeing. People were supported to have sufficient quantities of food and drinks of their preference.

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 supported this practice.

People received a caring service. Staff had developed caring relationships with people. Staff enabled people to express their views including with support from advocacy services. Advocates are independent of the service and they can support people to raise and communicate their wishes. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff had been given time for their training and this helped people to be cared for with compassion. Staff supported people in an equal way no matter what each person’s needs and independent living abilities were.

People received a responsive service. People, and or their relatives, were consulted about how their care was to be provided. Concerns raised by people were used to drive improvement and theirs and their relatives’ compliments were used to recognise what worked well. Staff used their skills to communicate with people effectively and requests for assistive technology were used to help people’s care was as personal as practicable. People could be assured that, when required, they would be able to have a dignified and pain free death.

People received a well-led service. People contributed, and had a say, in how the service was run. The nominated individual and manager motivated their staff team in various ways including shadowing experienced staff, team meetings and supervisions and mentoring. An open and honest staff and team culture had been enabled by the manager. This encouraged staff to communicate and share good practise as well as reporting any poor care should this ever occur. Quality assurance, audit and governance systems were effective in identifying and implementing areas for improvement when these were needed. The provider had notified us about important events that they had to.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.