Masterstaff Healthcare (Preston) provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes. The service supports people with a wide range of needs including older people, dementia, mental health, physical disability and sensory impairment and children. The service operates from an office base in the docklands area of Preston.At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
We spoke with nine people supported by the service. They told us staff who visited them were polite, friendly and caring. They told us they received patient and safe care and they liked the staff who supported them. Comments received included, “I am very happy with the service and find the staff are very reliable and helpful.” And, “I have the same group of staff visiting me and they are all brilliant. I am never rushed and allowed to go at my own speed. I have a laugh with them.”
The service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.
When we last inspected this service recruitment procedures required improvement. This was because we made a recommendation that the provider reviewed the recording of information received in relation to recruitment checks. We found there was not a clear audit trail confirming checks had been completed before new employees commenced working for the service. During this inspection records seen confirmed staff had been recruited safely and recruitment is now rated as good.
We found staff had been appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.
Staff retention was good and people told us they were supported by the same group of carers. They told us staff who supported them knew and consistently met their needs.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.
We looked at how the service was staffed. Five staff members spoken with said they were happy with how their visits were managed. They told us they were allocated sufficient time to be able to provide support people required. People supported by the service told us staff were reliable and never let them down with late or missed visits.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them.
Staff had received infection control training and were provided with appropriate personal protective clothing such as disposable gloves and aprons. This meant staff were protected from potential infection when delivering personal care.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
Staff supported people to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake. Assistance was provided in preparation of food and drinks as people needed.
People were supported to have access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. We saw the service had responded promptly when people had experienced health problems or required assistance to attend healthcare appointments.
People told us staff were caring towards them. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of high standards of care to give people meaningful lives.
People’s care and support was planned with them. People told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered.
The service had provided people with information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by them.
People told us the staff who visited them treated them with respect and dignity at all times.
People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. They told us they would be quite comfortable in telling someone if there was a problem.
The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks, telephone monitoring and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.
The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.