Archived: Home Instead Senior Care Basingstoke

Updated 10 December 2015

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 was 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 of the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on the 3 and 4 November 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours notice because the agency provided a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that people and care givers would be available to be spoken with.

Before this inspection we looked at the previous reports and notifications received by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A notification is information about important events which the agency is required to send us by law. We also spoke with two social and healthcare professionals about their experiences of working with Home Instead.

During the inspection we visited three people in their homes, spoke with one relative, the recruitment and training manager, the registered manager, the deputy care manager, the director and a care giver. We looked at six care plans, four sets of daily activity care notes and four care giver recruitment files. We also looked at the care givers training and supervision records, two people’s medicines administration records (MARS), quality assurance audits, the providers policies and procedures, care giver schedules for the 1 to the 15 November, complaints and compliments.

Following the inspection we spoke with a further four relatives, two people, another deputy care manager and one care giver.

This was the first inspection since the agency registered to deliver care in February 2015.

Updated 10 December 2015

This inspection was announced and took place on the 3 and 4 November 2015.

Home Instead Senior Care Basingstoke (referred to as Home Instead) is an agency which provides personal care and support to people who live in their own homes in Basingstoke and the immediate surrounding areas. People who receive this service include those living with dementia, people with medical conditions including diabetes and those receiving end of life care. At the time of the inspection the agency was providing personal care to 21 people. Care was being provided by domiciliary care staff the agency called ‘care givers’ and is how they will be referred to throughout this report. Domiciliary care is where care givers visit people in their homes to provide them with personal care and support.

Home Instead has a registered manager in post. 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.

People using the service told us they felt safe. Care givers understood and followed guidance to enable them to recognise and address any safeguarding concerns about people.

People’s safety was promoted because risks that may cause them harm in their home had been identified and managed safely. People were supported by care givers who encouraged them to remain independent. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff. New care giver induction training was followed by a period of time spent working with experienced colleagues to ensure they had the skills and confidence required to support people safely.

Contingency plans were in place to ensure the safe delivery of care in the event of adverse weather conditions and to protect the loss of care delivery if a power cut effected the main office. The registered manager and office staff were also trained care givers who were able to be deployed to deliver care if care givers reported sick or were behind on their agreed appointment times.

People were protected from unsafe administration of their medicines because care givers were trained effectively. Care givers had completed mandatory training to ensure people’s medicines were being prompted, administered, stored and disposed of correctly. Care giver skills in medicines management were reviewed on a regular basis by appropriately trained senior care givers to ensure they were competent to continue.

People were supported by care givers to make their own decisions. Care givers were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005). The service worked with people and relatives when required to assess people’s capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. Care givers sought people’s consent before delivering care and support.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People told us they were able to choose their meals and enjoyed what was provided. Records showed people’s food and drink preferences were documented in their care plans and were understood by care givers.

People’s health needs were met as the care givers and registered manager promptly engaged with other healthcare agencies and professionals to ensure people’s identified health care needs were met and to maintain their people’s safety and welfare. Personal care visits were operated on a minimum of a one hour appointment time to allow care givers to spend additional time supporting people with any additional needs.

Care givers demonstrated they knew and understood the needs of the people they were supporting. People told us they were happy with the care provided. The registered manager and care givers were able to identify and discuss the importance of maintaining people’s respect and privacy at all times. People were encouraged and supported by care givers to make choices about their care including how and what care they required.

People had care plans which were personalised to their needs and wishes. They contained detailed information to assist care givers to provide care in a manner that respected each person’s individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity. Relatives told us and records showed that they were encouraged to be involved at the care planning stage, during regular reviews and when their family members’ health needs changed.

People knew how to complain and told us they would do so if required. Procedures were in place for the registered manager to monitor, investigate and respond to complaints in an effective way. People, relatives and care givers were encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service during regular care plan reviews, care giver spot checks or telephone calls to and from the office staff.

The provider’s values were communicated to people and care givers. Care givers understood these and people told us these standards were evidenced in the way that care was delivered.

The registered manager, office staff and care givers promoted a culture which focused on providing individual person centred care. People were assisted by care givers who were encouraged to raise concerns with them, the registered manager and office staff. The provider had a routine and regular monitoring quality monitoring process in place to assess the quality of the service being provided. Care givers told us they felt supported by the registered manager and office staff.