Thurrock Branch

Updated 26 February 2019

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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.’

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type: This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community.

The service had a manager 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:

We gave the service two days’ notice of the inspection site visit because we wanted to ensure there would be someone in the office.

We visited the office location on 3 February 2019 to see the registered manager, speak with staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. The following week we undertook phone calls to speak with people who used the service and their relatives. We also received feedback from external healthcare professionals through email.

What we did:

The registered manager sent us a provider information return (PIR). This is a document completed by the registered manager which contains information on how the service is developing and any planned improvements.

As part of the inspection we spoke with two people who received care from the service and two relatives of people who received care over the telephone. We spoke with the registered manager and six members of care staff. We looked at three people’s care records and looked at three staff files including training and recruitment. We reviewed the service’s accidents and incidents, audits and complaints policies.

Updated 26 February 2019

About the service:

Thurrock Branch, referred to as Pineapple Care in this report, is a domiciliary care agency that was providing personal care to 60 people at the time of the inspection. It supports people with different needs and backgrounds. Including people with mobility needs, mental health needs, learning disabilities and dementia.

People’s experience of using this service:

People, relatives, staff and external healthcare professionals spoke highly of Pineapple Care. The service had strong person-centred values and placed people at the heart of their work. People had access to a stable staff team they knew well and achieved positive outcomes and strong relationships.

People were fully involved in their care and their wishes respected. People’s views were sought and their consent was always gained before any care took place. People were offered as many choices as possible in ways which met their individual needs. For example, staff had used innovative ideas to ensure one person who did not speak English was involved in their care in a way which respected their abilities.

People’s care plans contained personalised information which detailed how they wanted their care to be delivered. Staff knew people well and expressed care and affection for them when speaking with us.

Staff were highly valued and supported by Pineapple Care and the registered manager. All staff we spoke with were proud to work for the service and praised the high standards of care expected.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and management plans were put in place to ensure these were reduced as much as possible. During the inspection we identified some risks assessments which had not been completed but these were created and implemented immediately following our feedback.

People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.

There was strong leadership at the service and people, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. There was a positive culture at the service and staff felt their voices were listened to.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who worked hard to promote their independence and sense of wellbeing. We were given examples of the staff going above and beyond for people. For example, by developing innovative ways to improve their self-esteem. Staff were provided with the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people well.

The registered manager was passionate about improving the service and had plans for future projects to benefit people. There were quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

More information is in the full report

Rating at last inspection: This is the first time this service has been inspected.

Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled based on the registration date of the service.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service.