We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? The inspector gathered information from people who used the service by telephoning them or their relatives.Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection. We spoke with people who used the service, or their relatives. We also spoke with the staff that supported them and we looked at records the service held.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.
Staff knew about risk management plans and showed us examples where they had implemented them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
Recruitment practice is safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice can be identified and therefore people were protected.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.
We found there was a system in place to ensure there was sufficient staff to enable effective delivery of care and support.
We spoke with other agencies such as community nurses and social services who told us they worked collaboratively with the provider to ensure people's needs were met.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with ten people who were supported by the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was very positive, for example; 'They, the staff, are fantastic.', 'They , the staff, are special. They are intuitive.' ' I just ask and they do it. They are very flexible, especially when I have a hospital appointment, they change my time, it's not a bother to them!', 'I would miss them if they didn't come.', 'I don't feel rushed by the staff when they are with me.' 'They are consistent and professional.'
When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People can be assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care appropriately. We were told 'They go above and beyond, when supporting people with palliative care needs.'
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. We were told by one professional we spoke with 'The staff they employ meet the ethos of the company.' This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.