Penhellis Community Care Ltd (Roche)

Updated 10 October 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 took place on the 10, 11, 24 and 31 July 2018 and was announced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of, or has cared for a person who uses similar services.

This service has not been inspected before as it was previously a sub office of Penhellis Community Care Limited. That service was last inspected in March 2017 when it was found to be good overall. Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection spoke with 17 people who used the service, three relatives, 13 members of care staff and both registered managers. In addition, we inspected a range of records. These included six care plans, five staff files, training records, staff duty rotas, meeting minutes and the service’s policies and procedures.

Updated 10 October 2018

This inspection took place on the 10, 11, 24 and 31 July 2018 and was announced in accordance with our current methodology for the inspection of domiciliary care services. Not everyone using the service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.

Penhellis Community Care Ltd (Roche) is a domiciliary care service that provides support to over 150 people living in the east of Cornwall. The service normally provided visits of between 20 to 60 minutes to support people living in their own homes. This service has not been inspected before as it was previously a sub office of Penhellis Community Care Limited which was rated as good overall when last inspected in March 2017.

The service had two registered managers at the time of our inspection. One registered manager was based in the service full time and provided day to day leadership to the staff team. The other registered manager was also the providers nominated individual and was based in the provider’s Helston office but visited this service regularly. 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.

The roles and responsibilities of each registered manager were well understood and clearly defined. The registered managers were supported by three roster supervisors who were responsible for overseeing and planning care in specific geographical areas. Staff said they were supported by the office team and told us, “The manager is really good”, “The registered manager is very supportive” and “This is the best agency I have worked for.”

People and their relatives were complimentary of the quality of care and support the service provided. Comments received included, “I feel safe with them”, “I feel mum is in safe hands”, “They treat me like one of the family. They all have a laugh” and “[The Staff] are very caring and make a big fuss of my mum”. Staff understood their role in protecting people from abuse and discrimination. Safeguarding procedures were well understood by managers and staff told us any concerns they reported were acted upon.

There were sufficient staff available to provide all planned care visits and the service’s visit schedules were well organised. Staff were provided with appropriate travel time between consecutive care visits. Daily care records and call monitoring information showed visits were routinely provided on time and for the full duration.

Staff recruitment records showed all necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. Staff reported that they were well supported by their managers and that team meetings were held regularly. Staff comments included, “We have regular staff meetings and often discuss safeguarding issues”, “I definitely feel supported” and “My supervisor is really nice and approachable.”

The service had appropriate induction training processes in place and all staff were sufficiently skilled to meet people’s needs. Records showed staff training was regularly updated and people told us “They’re very well trained. I can’t fault them.”

Care plans were available in each person’s home and provided staff with sufficient detailed information and guidance. These documents had been updated regularly and included specific information on the support staff should provide during each planned care visit. Information about visits where the service was providing respite support for family carers was less detailed. This issue was discussed with the registered manager. They assured us they would update these care plans to provide staff with specific guidance on how to meet people’s individual needs during these longer support visits.

The service was in the process of introducing a new digital care planning, visit scheduling and call monitoring system at the time of our inspection. The transition to the new system had been well managed and staff reported it was easy to use. The system enabled staff to access information about people’s care needs and visits schedules via a mobile phone application. In addition, staff could use the application to report any observed changes to people’s needs to office staff and share information with staff due to provide further care visits. One staff member told us, “The app takes some getting used to but I think it is going to help a lot.”

The service’s records were well organised and there were appropriate quality assurance systems in place designed to drive improvements in the service’s performance. All daily care records were audited on return to the office and compared with call monitoring information. Where any discrepancies had been identified these had been investigated and resolved.

People were encouraged to provide feedback as part of care plan reviews and records showed all minor concerns or complaints made had been investigated and action taken to improve the quality of support provided. People said they would recommend Penhellis Community Care (Roche) Limited and their comments included, “I would recommend them to anyone” and “I find Penhellis absolutely first class.”