Archived: Inspired Care Ltd

Updated 6 April 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 inspection visit took place on 25 October 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would available at the office.

The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an expert-by-experience. 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 who was part of this inspection team had expertise in older people.

Before the inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service including statutory notifications the provider had sent us. Notifications are records of incidents that have occurred within the service or other matters that the provider is legally obliged to inform us of. We contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams and the local Healthwatch. Healthwatch are a consumer champion in health and care. They ensure the voice of the consumer is heard by those who commission, deliver and regulate health and care services.

For this inspection we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 spoke with two people who used the service and seven relatives over the telephone. During the inspection we talked with both of the registered managers and four care workers. We also contacted two people’s care managers to discuss their views of the service. We reviewed three people's care records. We looked at two staff personnel files, in addition to a range of records in relation to the safety and management of the service. After the inspection, the registered managers sent us some further information to help us with our inspection. We concluded these inspection activities on 2 November 2017.

Updated 6 April 2018

This inspection was announced and we inspected the agency office on 25 October 2017. We made telephone calls to people who used the service and their relatives which concluded on 2 November 2017. Whilst the provider had previously run a service from another location, this is the first inspection of this service which was registered with the Care Quality Commission in May 2016.

.

Inspired Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults, including some people with dementia, and some younger disabled adults. At the time of this inspection the service provided care to 22 people.

Two registered managers were in place. The registered managers were also the owners of the company. 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, relatives, staff and the registered managers described an exceptionally caring service. We heard how staff had gone the extra mile to provide compassionate care when people most needed it. Staff had taken homemade favourite foods into hospital when one person they supported was admitted and not eating much of the hospital meals. Another example was when staff and managers all committed to working additional hours at short notice, so they could enable one person they had previously supported to return home from hospital for the last days of their life.

We viewed a large number of compliments which the service had received from people, relatives and health professionals. These described 'outstanding' care by staff who had built strong bonds with the people they supported.

The registered managers communicated a clear vision to put people at the centre of everything they did, and through speaking with people and relatives we saw evidence this vision was working in practice. Care records were highly detailed, and emphasised not only the specific ways in which care should be delivered but how the person was an individual with much to offer.

People were respected and their dignity and independence were promoted. The service provided a box for all of the equipment and records relating to people's care to be stored in. This was designed to limit the intrusion of receiving care on the family home.

People and relatives spoke very highly of all aspects of the service. They told us they felt safe with staff employed by the service. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in responding to any concerns of a safeguarding nature.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. People's care was provided by a small team of staff, who knew people and their needs well. Safe recruitment procedures had been followed.

People's medicines were well managed and staff followed processes to minimise the spread of infection.

Staff had undertaken training in a range of subjects to enable them to carry out their role. Staff training dates were recorded and monitored to ensure any required updates or refresher training was planned so staff skills and knowledge remained up to date. Staff received additional training in relation to people’s specific needs and their skills were assessed to determine if they were competent to deliver the task safely.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were encouraged to share their feedback, senior staff visited people monthly to carry out reviews, observations of staff conduct, and to monitor the quality of records kept. People were asked to complete a satisfaction survey and we saw responses were very positive. Staff and healthcare professionals had also been asked to share their experience of the service.

People we spoke with told us they would not hesitate in sharing any concerns, but that they were very satisfied with the service. Complaints were well managed, and had been investigated and responded to. The registered managers acknowledged the value to the service from any complaint as an opportunity to improve their service.

The quality assurance system included a wide range of checks which were carried out to monitor the quality of the service. These included audits, observations of staff conduct and monitoring the service against key indicators based on the values of the service.

People and their relatives told us the service was managed very well. Staff meetings were held regularly.