We carried out a review of the data available to us about Home Instead on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Home Instead, you can give feedback on this service.
Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 32 people. 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
The service was rated Outstanding in caring at our last inspection. The service continued to be Outstanding in the way they cared for people. Staff demonstrated a real empathy for the people they cared for. They had a clear understanding of people’s needs and had developed positive relationships with them and their family members. One person told us their regular care worker was consistent and excellent. A relative said the provider offered a genuinely caring and outstanding service.
The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks had taken place before staff started work and there were enough staff available to meet people’s care and support needs. People’s medicines were managed safely. Risks to people had been assessed to ensure their needs were safely met. The service had procedures in place to reduce the risk of infections.
People’s care and support needs were assessed before they started to use the service. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to support people appropriately. Staff were supported through induction, training and regular supervision. People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and had access to health care professionals when they needed them. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider had achieved positive outcomes for some people when they had been discharged from hospital. A relative told us after a month of support from the agency their loved one’s health had dramatically improved and they hadn’t looked back since. The service supported people to avoid social isolation and to take part in activities that were relevant to them. People and their relatives (where appropriate) had been consulted about their care and support needs. The service had a complaints procedure in place. There were procedures in place to make sure people had access to end of life care and support if it was required.
The registered manager had worked in partnership with health and social care providers to plan and deliver an effective service. The provider took people and their relatives views into account through satisfaction surveys. Staff enjoyed working at the service and said they received good support from the registered manager.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 10 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
Home Instead Senior Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 29 people. Visits were a minimum of one hour and the frequency of visits varied depending on people's individual needs.
The previous registered manager left the service in September 2016. The providers have been actively seeking a replacement manager. There is an acting manager (who had previously been the registered manager of the service) and deputy in post, who with the support of the provider (who had previously been a registered manager), oversee the agency. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the agency. 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 agency is run.
People, their relatives and other stakeholders told us that Home Instead provided an excellent service. People were supported by staff and management who were committed to people being in control of their own lives and care. Staff shared the provider’s passion and commitment to provide the best care possible. The provider and staff all worked to ‘make a difference’ to people.
Staff were supported and trained and had the skills they needed to support people. Staff were recruited safely and were asked questions related to the values of the service to help recruit the right staff. Staff said they felt supported and confident in their roles. The office staff also supported people so they knew them and could step in to cover any shortfalls like sickness. Staff were regularly given feedback to improve their performance or recognise their achievements.
There were enough staff to over all the calls and meet people’s needs. Staff were on time for visits, they often stayed beyond the allotted time if they needed to and people said they did not feel rushed. People told us staff were ‘kind and caring, often going above and beyond what was expected.’ Staff treated the people they supported and their families with dignity and respect, always remembering they were in someone else’s home.
People and staff were matched by the agency, taking into account their hobbies and life experiences. People told us they had built positive relationships with staff. Staff used their knowledge of people to encourage them to stay well and remain independent. People were left snacks or drinks they liked to encourage them to eat and drink. If staff were concerned about people’s health or weight, they contacted the office who would speak to the person’s family or make a referral for support. Relatives told us this prompt response to health needs had enabled their family members to stay in their own home which was their wish.
The provider, manager and staff worked with local charities and organisations to support people to be active and take part in activities. The provider and manager set up a ‘Friday club’ for people to be able to socialise and to reduce the feeling of isolation. The provider also delivered dementia training to local groups and families to increase their understanding of the condition.
People had care plans which were developed by them, and were based on their preferences. Some of the care plans were very detailed and gave staff the information they needed to provide people’s care. People chose the times of their calls and the staff worked around this so that everyone had a call at a time that suited them.
Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. There had been no safeguarding incidents in the past year, but the manager and provider knew what to do if they occurred. Risks to people and staff had been thoroughly assessed and action taken to mitigate them when necessary.
Trained staff supported people with their medicines, including people as much as possible. Staff had up to date knowledge on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They supported people to make their own choices. People signed their care plans, giving consent to their care.
The provider regularly checked the quality of care given to people through surveys, spot checks and quality assurance visits. Positive feedback was passed on to the staff, staff told us ‘This makes us know how much they value us.’
The service was a franchise branch of a national company and was audited six monthly by the head office and improvements had been noted.
The service had not received any complaints in the last 12 months, but people told us they knew who to complain to and how. There was a policy in place and the provider reminded people of it when she visited them.