Background to this inspection
Updated
23 March 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
One inspector and one expert by experience carried out this inspection on the 30 January 2019. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience telephoned people that used the service to gain their feedback. Two inspectors carried out the second visit to the office on the 15 February 2019.
Service and service type:
Hamilton House is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. Not everyone using Hamilton House receives a regulated activity; 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.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager was also the registered provider. This means that they are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of our inspection as Hamilton House is a community based service and we needed to be sure the registered manager and staff would be available. Inspection site visit activity started on 30 January 2019 and ended on 21 February 2019. We visited the office location on 30 January 2019 and the 15 February 2019 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records, staff records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection, in April 2016. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse or serious injury. We asked the service to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
During the inspection, we spoke to eight people including relatives, ten care staff, the provider/registered manager, deputy head of care and support and the training and recruitment manager.
We reviewed a range of records. This included six people's care records and medicine records. We also looked at four staff files recruitment, assessment and supervision and support. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service, staff training and policies and procedures.
Updated
23 March 2019
About the service:
Hamilton House (also known as Bluebird Care (Medway), is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care for people who require support in their own home. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ and help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, the service was supporting 80 people. They provide care services mainly to people living in the Medway local authority area, but also to some people who live in the Kent local authority area.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe with staff.
People had good relationships with staff, who were knowledgeable of their physical and emotional needs, as well as likes, dislikes and interests. Staff were responsive to changes in people's health needs. If needed, they sought advice from relevant professionals.
People felt included in planning their care. People’s rights and their dignity and privacy were respected.
People were supported to live the lifestyle of their choice. People told us they were listened to by the management of the service.
People could involve relatives and others who were important to them when they chose the care they wanted.
People received a person-centred service that met their needs and helped them to achieve their goals and ambitions. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
People were fully involved in their care planning and received information in a way that they understood. The care plans were consistently reviewed and updated. Care planning informed staff what people could do independently and what staff needed to do to support people.
Staff supported people to maintain a balanced diet and monitor their nutritional health. People had access to GP’s and their health and wellbeing was supported by prompt referrals and access to medical care if they became unwell.
People were protected from the spread of infection and medicines were stored and managed safely. There were polices and procedures in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff followed these policies and had been trained to administer medicines safely.
People felt comfortable raising any complaints with staff and the registered manager.
People were asked for feedback about the service they received.
People found the registered manager approachable and supportive.
The registered manager recruited staff with relevant experience and the right attitude to work with people. New staff were given an induction and on-going training. Staff were deployed in a planned way, with the correct training, skills and experience to meet people’s needs.
The provider who was also the registered manager made sure they monitored the service in various ways to ensure they continued to provide a good quality service that maintained people’s safety.
The registered manager and staff were working with a clear vision for the service.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection: This service was rated, “Good” at the last inspection on 19 and 21 April 2016.
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection to check the service remained Good. We found the service continued to meet the characteristics of Good.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will carry out another scheduled inspection to make sure the service continues to maintain a Good rating.