Archived: Numada Homecare

Updated 28 August 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. 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

This inspection was carried out by one inspector and an assistant inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides short term reablement support and personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

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 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity started on 31 July 2019 and ended on 12 August 2019. We visited the office location on 31 July 2019.

What we did before 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 the local authority head of reablement about the service. We spoke with four people who used the service and two relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with seven members of staff including the provider, registered manager, one field care supervisor and four care workers.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We requested some information from the registered manager which we received. The registered manager also sent us information to clarify some of the feedback we had given.

Updated 28 August 2019

About the service

Numada Homecare is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. The service was supporting 29 people at the time of the inspection. The service provided short term reablement support, usually up to six weeks, with the aim of supporting people to regain their independence and assess any ongoing support needs. The service had a single point of referral from the local authority reablement service, the Community Response Team (CRT) we have referred to the CRT in this report.

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

People and their relatives told us the service provided safe care. Staff were aware of people’s risks which were assessed with plans developed to mitigate these. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and staff and people told us there was enough time during calls to meet people’s needs without rushing. Staff were recruited safely and knew how to safeguard people from abuse.

People were protected from the risk of infection and staff were checked to ensure they used the appropriate equipment to promote safe and hygienic care. Medicines were mostly managed safely but information about ‘as required’ medicines was missing from the records. This information supports the safe management of people’s medicines. We have made a recommendation about this. Information from incidents at the service was used to make improvements and prevent a reoccurrence.

People’s needs were assessed by the CRT prior to the person using the service and the provider added to this information during their initial visits and as people’s needs changed. People were asked about their protected characteristics to inform people’s needs and support non-discriminatory practice. 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. Staff completed training to meet people’s needs and this was monitored for completion. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met where applicable. People were supported to access a range of healthcare and other services to meet their needs with a focus on enabling people to regain and maintain their independence.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Staff knew how to provide respectful care that promoted people’s dignity and privacy. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and their consent was sought by staff.

The provider occasionally supported people at the end of life and told us they relied on the CRT for a care plan in these circumstances. The provider’s policy did not detail all the information that may be required to care for someone appropriately at the end of their life, so they could check people’s needs had been fully explored. We have made a recommendation about this. People told us their needs were met by the service and they were supported to achieve positive outcomes. Complaints about the service were investigated, responded to and used to identify trends and improve practice. People were asked about their communication needs and the service was able to provide information in appropriate formats to meet these.

An effective system was in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager used information from incidents and audits to achieve continuous improvements. Staff spoke positively about the culture and management of the service and people told us they were ‘happy’ with the service they received. Feedback from people was sought but the registered manager was working on making the current system more meaningful to service development. Staff were asked to give feedback but the analysis of this could be improved to show learning and actions taken as a result. We have made a recommendation about this. The service worked in partnership with other agencies to promote and support people’s wellbeing and independence.

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 good (published 30 December 2016). The service remains rated good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Numada Homecare on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

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.