During the course of this inspection 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? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with relatives of those who used the service, support and administrative staff and from looking at records. The manager of the agency was on annual leave at the time of our visit to this location. However, the administrative staff were very helpful and competent in producing any additional records we requested. The two people we selected to case track were unable to talk with us on the telephone and therefore we spoke with their relative and agency staff supporting them. The relatives we spoke with gave us positive responses to the questions we asked.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with told us their relatives felt safe using the service and their dignity was always respected. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. Systems were in place to help managers and the staff to learn from untoward incidents, such as safeguarding concerns. This helped the service to continually improve.
People we spoke with told us the staff were kind and caring and that procedures were carried out in a safe and competent manner. Staff we spoke with were fully aware of the importance of protecting people's safety and the need to report any concerns immediately. Records showed that all workers had received a good range of training in relation to health and safety topics. This helped to ensure the staff team could protect people in their care from harm.
Is the service effective?
The health and personal care needs of those who used the service had been thoroughly assessed, with a range of people involved in their care and support. Evidence was available to demonstrate that the service responded well to concerns raised and developed appropriate action plans. This reduced the potential of untoward incidents reoccurring.
Systems were in place to ensure the service was, in general effectively assessed, so the quality of service provided could be consistently monitored. A wide range of training modules were provided for staff, with regular mandatory updates. This helped to ensure the staff team delivered effective care and support for those who used the service.
Is the service caring?
We asked relatives about the staff team. Feedback from them was positive. However, the provider may wish to note that one person discussed the appropriateness of matching staff with service users, as her relative responded better to a certain type of staff and this was reportedly not always considered when allocating care workers.
People's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had, in general been provided in accordance with people's wishes. Relatives we spoke with told us people's care needs were met in most instances, but when concerns were raised about care provided then the agency acted promptly and dealt with the matter in hand.
Is the service responsive?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care and support in a consistent way. Evidence was available to show the agency responded well to any suggestions for improvement and appropriate action was taken to rectify any shortfalls identified. Records showed evidence of examples where the service had responded well to issues raised.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system in place and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result, the quality of service provided was continuously monitored.
Staff spoken with had a good understanding of their roles. They were confident in reporting any concerns and they felt well supported by the managers of the service. People who used the service or their relatives completed annual satisfaction surveys. The results of these were produced in percentages and bar chart formats, for easy reference. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with appropriately.