Calverton Supreme Home Care

Updated 6 February 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is 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 comprehensive inspection took place on the 10 January 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager and their staff would be available.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and two Expert-by-Experiences (EXE). These are people who have had personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The ExEs attempted contact with 51 people and spoke with a total of 16 people who used the service and eight relatives before and during the inspection to gain their views.

Before the inspection we used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. However, the provider had submitted their PIR in August 2016 and had not been requested to complete another before this inspection.

We also reviewed information that we held about the service such as notifications, which are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about, and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. Prior to the provider’s office visit we contacted some staff via telephone to gain their feedback about the service. We spoke with two senior care staff and three care workers.

At the provider’s office we spoke with the provider’s representative, the registered manager, the care manager / trainer, care coordinator, care quality administrator and three care staff. We also reviewed the care records for six people who used the service. We also looked at a range of other records relating to the running of the service such as quality audits, policies and procedures, complaints and a sample of staff files and staff training.

Updated 6 February 2018

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 10 January 2018.

A registered manager was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using Calverton Supreme Home Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Calverton Supreme Home Care supports people with a variety of needs to live independently in the community. At the time of our inspection 66 people were receiving personal care as part of their care package.

At the previous inspection in July 2016 we identified some improvements were required in two key areas we inspected; ‘Responsive’ and ‘Well-led’. This resulted in the service having an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the registered provider had made the required improvements.

People received safe care because the registered provider had processes in place to reduce the risk of people experiencing avoidable harm. Staff had received appropriate safeguarding training and had up to date information, to support them to manage any known risks. Staff were aware of the action required to respond to any new risks. The majority of people who used the service reported they received visits by staff at the agreed time and staff stayed for the duration of the call. Equally, people told us they were on the whole informed if staff were running late.

The registered provider had safe staff recruitment processes in place and these were used effectively to ensure as far as possible, staff recruited were appropriate to provide care and support. There were sufficient staff employed and deployed appropriately to meet people's needs. Where people required support with their prescribed medicines there were safe medicine management processes in place. Staff had received training in how to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Any accidents and incidents were recorded, reported and investigated and action was taken to reduce further reoccurrence.

Staff received a planned and structured induction on commencement of their employment and ongoing training and opportunities to discuss their work and development needs.

People were treated equally and were not discriminated against as a result of their health or social care needs. People’s health related needs had been assessed and were monitored; staff took appropriate and supportive action if people were unwell.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were understood by staff. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the less restrictive way possible.

People who used the service were supported by staff that treated them with care and compassion, people’s privacy and dignity were maintained and respected. The registered provider had processes in place to regularly discuss and review’s people’s care package with them.

People's diverse needs were respected. People were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible. People were provided with information about how they could access independent advocates.

People who used the service and their relative or representative where appropriate, were involved in the pre-assessment and development of their care package and ongoing reviews. People who used the service received a weekly staff rota to inform them what staff were scheduled to visit. In the main the management team tried to ensure people received consistent staff but acknowledged some people preferred to have different staff to support them.

People’s individual needs, routines and how they wished to be supported had been assessed and planned for. Staff had clear information and instruction of how to meet people’s needs to support them to provide a person centred approach to the service they provided.

People had a service user guide that provided information of what they could expect from the service. This included information of how to make a complaint.

People received opportunities to share their experience of the service they received from the registered provider. Systems and processes were in place that checked on quality and safety issues and these were managed well. Staff were clear about the registered provider’s aims and values and spoke positively about their work and leadership of the service. People who used the service on the whole were happy and satisfied with the service they received.