The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Sheffcare Home Care Services

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

190 St Philips Road, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S3 7JY (0114) 272 4366

Provided and run by:
SheffCare Limited

All Inspections

17 and 18 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Sheffcare Home Care Services is registered to provide personal care. Support is provided to younger adults and older people living in their own homes throughout the city of Sheffield. Support can range from practical support with household tasks to befriending, help with personal care and sitting services that may include overnight support. The agency office is based in the Netherthorpe area of Sheffield, close to transport links. The service is available 365 days each year, 24 hours a day.

At the time of this inspection Sheffcare Home Care Services was supporting ten people whose support included the provision of the regulated activity ‘personal care’.

There was a registered manager at the service who was registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our last inspection at Sheffcare Home Care Services took place on 7 April 2014. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

This inspection took place on 17 and 18 November 2015 and short notice was given. We told the registered manager two working days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available.

People supported by the service and their relatives or representatives told us they felt (their relative was) safe with their care workers and staff were respectful. People told us the support provided met their needs and the care workers were kind, caring and polite. People spoken with said they had some regular care workers that they knew well. They usually knew which care worker would be visiting to support them and care workers generally arrived when they should.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Staff were provided with relevant induction and training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and proud to work at the service. Staff were confident in the way the service was managed. The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.

The support provided was person centred and each person had a support plan that accurately reflected their needs and wishes so that these could be respected. Support plans had been reviewed to ensure they remained up to date.

People supported and their relatives or representatives said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to. People using the service and their relatives had been asked their opinion via surveys, the results of these had been audited to identify any areas for improvement.

7 April 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection three people were supported by Sheffcare Home Care Services. One of the three people supported by the agency was provided with personal care. The registered manager and a deputy manager / care coordinator were employed. The care coordinator undertook the majority of support visits.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? We gathered information from people using the service by telephoning them.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

We found that risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The registered manager and care coordinator organised the scheduling of visits to ensure people's preferences and identified needs were taken into account. This helps to ensure that people's needs are always met.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs.

Staff were provided with training and support to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with two people being supported by the service and two relatives of people supported. We asked them for their opinions about the support provided. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'they have never missed a visit, you can rely on them', 'they understand what I need', 'they really care, that's the difference with this company'.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People spoken with said they had never had to make a complaint but knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We found that appropriate procedures were in place to respond to and record any complaints received. People can be assured that systems were in place to investigate complaints and take action as necessary.

Records seen showed that people had been listened to and the agency had responded to their views. We saw that one person's visit times had been changed in order to suit their preferences and needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service has a quality assurance system, and systems were in place to ensure any issues were identified promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the agency. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.