Simply Caring

Updated 22 December 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 comprehensive inspection took place on the 23, 27 November and 04 December 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 72 hours’ notice because the location provides care in people’s homes and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be in. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the records held on the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR) which is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed notifications and previous reports. Notifications are specific events registered people have to tell us about by law.

During our inspection we met with five people who used the service, two relatives and three friends of people. We met three staff, the provider and the registered manager. Following the inspection we spoke with one relative, received professional feedback from two people and reviewed the information from 11 comment cards staff sent us.

We looked at four care records which related to people’s individual care needs. We viewed three staff recruitment and induction files, the staff training information, and records associated with the management of the service. This included policies and procedures, people and staff feedback, staff meeting minutes and the complaints process. Following the inspection, we asked the registered manager for further information on end of life care which was supplied promptly.

Updated 22 December 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 23, 27 November and 04 December 2018. 72 hours’ notice was given as we needed to be sure the registered manager would be available when we visited the agency offices. This time also enabled the registered manager to arrange home visits. This allowed us to hear about people’s and relatives experiences of the service.

Simply Caring is a domiciliary care agency. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care. Simply Caring is registered to provide personal care to younger and older adults who may be living with dementia, have sensory impairments, and / or physical disabilities. It provides personal care to 33 people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Additional services which are not regulated by the Commission were also provided, for example support with housework, companionship services and support to remain active.

At the last inspection in May 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated as Good:

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

The service was well-led with person-centred values and a vision to provide high quality compassionate care. The provider and registered manager were open and approachable. The registered manager listened to feedback and reflected on how the service could be further improved. The service worked across organisations to ensure effective care, support and treatment.

People were protected from harm and discrimination. People’s human rights were protected because the code of practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was understood and followed. People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks were known.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. All staff demonstrated respect for people through their conversations and interactions. Staff listened to people and gave them time to support their emotional needs. People were supported by a consistent staff group who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. As far as possible, people were actively involved in making simple choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People, and those who mattered to them were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported by compassionate staff in their final days.

People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated. People felt safe with the staff providing their care.

Risks associated with people’s care and their living environment were effectively managed to ensure their freedom was promoted. People’s independence was encouraged and staff helped people feel valued by engaging in everyday tasks where they were able to.

The provider and management team wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that robust staff checks had been undertaken. Staff underwent an induction, and there was ongoing training to meet people’s needs effectively. People were cared for by a consistent staff team they knew and trusted. People’s medicines were managed safely.

People were encouraged to live healthy lives, and their overall well being was promoted. People were supported to access health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Safe infection control practices were followed. Staff had access to personal protective equipment and had received training in minimising cross infection.

Policies and procedures were in place if people had a concern or complaint. Feedback was gathered from people to continue to improve the service. Complaints and incidents were reflected upon to ensure ongoing improvement. The registered manager / provider promoted the ethos of honesty and admitted when things had gone wrong. The service kept abreast of changes to maintain quality care.

Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example simple questions and information was given to people with cognitive difficulties.

People received care which was responsive to their needs. People and their relatives were encouraged to be part of the care planning process and to attend or contribute to care reviews where possible. This helped to ensure the care being provided met people’s individual needs. However, care plans required further developing to include more detail on people’s preferences and routines.

People were treated equally and fairly and some staff had received training in equality and diversity. The management team were also considering how this area could be further developed across policies, assessments and care plans.

We recommend care plans are developed further to reflect people’s diverse needs, care, routine and preferences.