Home Instead Senior Care

Updated 8 October 2021

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors 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.

One inspector visited the office location on 02 August 2021. Both inspectors made telephone calls to staff after visiting the office location.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

The service had two managers registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with eight people who used the service and five relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with nine members of staff including the registered managers, care coordinator, quality and compliance leads and care staff, we also received feedback via email from one staff member. One of the registered managers is also the nominated individual. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records and related medicines records where applicable. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at a variety of compliance records, not limited to, but including training data, meeting records, surveys, policies and procedures and quality assurance records.

Updated 8 October 2021

About the service

Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care service. It is registered to provide personal care to younger and older people with a physical disability; learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder; dementia; sensory impairment and mental health needs.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 41 people were receiving personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The service had two registered managers. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care

Quality Commission to manage the service. We could not be assured the registered managers fully understood the regulatory requirements in relation to notifying CQC of police incidents.

Multiple Quality assurance systems and processes enabled the registered managers to identify areas for improvement. However, these had not identified a potential failure to notify CQC of a police incident or a system issue for the recording of as required medicines.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on staffing meant at times some people received care from staff they had not previously met. Some people and staff felt there were not enough staff. However, we found everyone received care at the time they needed it, no care visits were missed and changes to care staff had been agreed in advance with people. The service was actively recruiting new staff.

The registered managers were passionate about providing person-centred care. They knew people well as they were involved in care delivery. The service regularly sought feedback from people about their care experience to ensure any issues were promptly addressed.

People were supported by staff that knew how to keep them safe from harm or abuse. People received medicines on time and were supported by staff that had been safely recruited. Staff had a good knowledge of risks associated with providing people’s care and received training relevant to people’s needs. They were empowered to develop their knowledge and skills.

The service supported people to express their views, preferences, wishes and choices. The service ensured staff supporting people had similar hobbies and interests, this contributed to the success of the care delivery. Staff supported people to engage in their hobbies and interests, while promoting people’s independence. The service was flexible and responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and felt confident this would be addressed.

People and staff gave many examples of the care they received that was kind, caring and compassionate. Staff we spoke with were committed to ensuring people’s health, emotional and social wellbeing needs were fully met. People and staff had built positive relationships together and enjoyed spending time in each other’s company. People’s diversity was respected and embraced. Staff were open to people of all faiths and beliefs and people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the

least restrictive ways possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and to attend healthcare appointments as needed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Outstanding (published 05 July 2018).

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.