Alina Homecare Ringwood

Alina Homecare Ringwood is a domiciliary care service. They provide personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection, 36 people were receiving personal care from the service.

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.

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

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

People were protected from harm by staff trained in safeguarding and a robust risk assessment and care planning process ensured that people were kept safe while enjoying fulfilling lives.

Staff were safely recruited and sufficiently deployed to provide unrushed care to people.

Staff were trained in administering medicines and were regularly checked for competency. Medicines were audited by the registered manager and a clear procedure was in place in the event of medicines errors or omissions.

Staff understood the importance of infection control procedures and were clear in their approach to use of protective equipment and hygiene.

The provider had a robust system of sharing learning from incidents and learning from all services would be shared to ensure that best practice was constantly updated.

Peoples assessments and care plans were person centred and the provider asked the question, “What can Alina make easier for you?” to identify the supports that people needed.

Staff completed an in-depth five-day induction before commencing their caring duties and were assessed to ensure they were competent in some areas such as medicines. Staff were supported to complete their care Certificate then progress to qualifications such as diplomas in social care. A training academy provided other training and could source additional training that was required.

Staff participated in six weekly supervision meetings and found the process useful.

The provider supported people with meals and if someone needed additional support referred to appropriate healthcare professionals. They also used less formal approaches to stimulate people’s appetites such as buying one person fish and chips to tempt them to eat more.

Peoples care needs had been assessed and detailed assessments and care plans were found in all care records. Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 had been identified and measured were in place to ensure any associated needs were met. We received extensive positive feedback from people and their relatives about the approach taken by staff and the management team.

Staff were able to get to know the people they supported well, and the provider had a policy of limiting the amount of staff providing support to people enabled people to become familiar with staff. Regular reviews both face to face and by telephone ensured that the care delivered was delivered as the person preferred and staff were aware that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to care was not acceptable.

People felt respected by staff and staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to complete tasks that would retain their independence.

Staff understood the principles of providing person centred care and care plans reflected that the person was consistently considered.

Peoples communication needs were met, and the provider could source a variety of different formats when standard written information was unsuitable.

The provider supported people to access their local community and planned some events for people to attend to reduce social isolation. Staff took time to ensure they were familiar with peoples interests and life, so they could tailor conversations and develop rapport with people.

A great deal of positive feedback had been received from people, relatives and social care professionals about staff and the service they provided and just one complaint, likely due to a miscommunication had been received in the first year of the service.

When we inspected, no-one was being supported with end of life care. The provider had previously supported people at the end of life and provided training and support to staff in this area.

We received positive feedback about the management team and the registered manager. Staff and people found them to be approachable and open to suggestions.

The provider’s values were evident in the care provided, the conduct of staff and in the day to day running of the service.

There was an open and honest culture with information being shared with staff and people as appropriate. The registered manager was clear about their responsibilities under the duty of candour.

Regular quality assurance surveys provided feedback and people were encouraged to provide feedback at point of review. Audits were completed at intervals and a provider led quality team completed a robust audit every six months which produced and action plan for the registered manager to complete.

The registered manager had forged positive links with commissioners, healthcare professionals and the public and was working in partnership with them whenever possible.

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 27 April 2018 and this is the first inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on our requirement to inspect within 12 months of registration.

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.

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