Archived: Homecare Woking

Updated 26 April 2017

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 was 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 25 January 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our visit because we wanted to ensure the service manager was available to support the inspection. Due to the small size of this service, one inspector undertook the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection. Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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.

During our inspection we visited the agency’s premises and spoke with the service manager. We spoke with seven care staff to hear about the training and support they received to do their jobs. We checked care records for four people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We checked four staff recruitment files and other records relating to the management of the service, including staff training and induction, the complaints log and quality monitoring checks.

We spoke with one person who used the service and nine relatives by telephone to hear their views about the care and support the agency provided.

This was the first inspection of this service since its registration with CQC. The service had previously been registered with CQC under a different provider.

Updated 26 April 2017

The inspection took place on 25 January 2017 and was announced.

Homecare Woking provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service supported 54 people at the time of our inspection, 14 of whom received personal care. The service is operated by Triangle Community Services Limited, a not-for-profit provider of health and social care services for older people.

The service manager had applied for registration with the Care Quality Commission and had an interview for this role scheduled in February 2017. Like registered providers, registered managers are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff provided people’s care in a safe way. They understood any risks involved in people’s care and managed these well. People could rely on the agency’s staff and relatives said they had never missed a visit. They told us staff almost always arrived on time and that people were informed if staff were running late.

The provider carried out checks to ensure they employed only suitable staff. Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in terms of recognising and reporting abuse. The provider had made plans to ensure people’s care would not be interrupted an emergency. If an incident or accident occurred, this was recorded and checked to identify what action could be taken to prevent a recurrence. Where people received support with their medicines, this aspect of their care was managed safely.

People received their care from regular staff who knew their needs well. The provider understood the importance people placed on having regular care workers and ensured people received a consistent service from familiar staff. Staff had access to the training and support they needed. All staff had an induction when they started work and access to ongoing refresher training, supervision an appraisal.

People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood the importance of consent and respected people’s choices about their care. If people lacked the capacity to make decisions, relevant people had been consulted to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

Relatives told us staff knew their family member’s dietary needs and food preferences. They said staff prepared meals their family members enjoyed. Staff responded appropriately if people became unwell. Relatives said staff were observant of any changes in their family member’s needs and had helped them access medical treatment if they needed it.

Staff were kind and caring. Relatives told us their family members had developed good relationships with their care workers and enjoyed their company. They said staff treated their family members with respect and maintained their dignity when providing care. Staff supported people to maintain their independence wherever possible. Some relatives told us staff had supported their family members to receive care that they had previous refused, which had resulted in positive outcomes for people.

People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. People were encouraged to be involved in their assessments and care plans to ensure they reflected their individual needs and preferences. Staff were flexible in their approach to make sure people received the support they needed. People knew how to complain if they were dissatisfied. Relatives told us they had not needed to complain but were confident the manager would respond appropriately if they raised concerns.

The service was well managed, which meant people received effective care. Relatives said communication from the agency’s office was good. They told us they could always contact the office if they needed to and said the manager responded well to requests for changes. People and their relatives had opportunities to give their views and their feedback was used as an opportunity to improve the service.

Staff told us they received good support from the manager and the other office-based staff. They said the manager was approachable and promoted an open culture in which they felt able to speak openly and raise any concerns they had.

The provider had established effective systems to monitor the quality of the service, including the quality of care people received. Staff maintained accurate records of the care they provided, which were audited regularly by a member of the office team. Records in the agency’s office were accurate, up to date and stored appropriately.