Archived: Independent Home Life Services Also known as Live Well at Home

We last inspected in February 2015. At the February 2015 inspection we found that the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations at that time.

At our inspection on 3, 6 and 22 March 2017, there was a registered manager in post. The previous registered manager had left the service in March 2015. Additionally branch manager was in position and they were in the process of applying to be registered with the care quality commission. 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 received safe and effective care which enabled them to live in their own homes. People and their relatives praised the care staff and spoke positively about the care they received. The care people received was personalised to their needs. People and their relatives felt involved in their care and spoke positively about the relationships they had with staff. People and their relatives felt they had the information they needed and their views were listened to and respected.

People told us they felt listened to and could not fault the care they received. People were cared for by care staff and team leaders who were supported by the registered manager. Staff had access to professional development through the provider. The registered manager and training manager knew the needs of staff and had systems to ensure staff had access to the training and support they needed. All staff told us they were supported.

The registered manager had systems to monitor the quality of service people received. The systems enabled the registered manager to identify concerns and make clear improvements to the service. There were strong systems in place to ensure the quality of care people received was of a high standard.

Checks were completed on the employment history of staff and records of criminal offences. Risk assessments were undertaken if there was a lack of information or any potentially concerning information came to light. The recruitment policy had been updated and records were audited weekly to check the policy was being followed.

People were involved in care planning and the care provided was in line with their care plan. Care plans were reviewed regularly. Everyone we spoke with was positive about the standard of care received. Some of the comments included 'The girls are excellent', 'Staff are not too bad ' I am getting to know them' and 'I don't know what I would do without them'. People told us that staff continuity had improved but 20% of the people we spoke with had problems with staff timekeeping.

Medication was administered and recorded safely. Staff had received training or were booked on training where this had expired. The medication policy was not in line with current practice. Recruitment procedures required review as all necessary checks were not in place to safeguard people. Checks on reasons for leaving previous employment and Disclosure and Barring checks were not being adequately used. There was not adequate evidence that risks were being assessed prior to employment.

The provider had systems in place to monitor quality including questionnaires and responding to complaints and incidents. One person said 'They dealt well with my concerns ' they seemed grateful to know so they could get it right'. We saw evidence of change where quality issues were identified.

People were involved in planning their care and were provided with relevant information. People told us they felt respected by staff and most people were positive about the care they received. Some people, however, raised concerns about the timeliness of visits and continuity of staff.

People told us they knew how to complain or report concerns. The service had written to all clients about the complaints process. We saw good responses to complaints received by head office. We got mixed feedback from people about how complaints were dealt with.

Staff were positive about the training available and were knowledgeable about safeguarding. We were told staff support and supervision had improved since new team leaders started. This was reflected by the staff records.

The care records we reviewed varied in quality and frequency of review. They did not contain enough information to allow a care worker unfamiliar with the person to provide quality care.

The service had undergone significant staffing changes in 2012. The changes seemed to have had a positive impact on service provision and staff support. The manager was aware, however, that further work was required to embed these changes.