Background to this inspection
Updated
11 May 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. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014
Inspection team:
This inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.
Service and service type:
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.
Your Life (Ferndown) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the registered manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
What we did:
Before the inspection we looked at notifications we had received about the service. We looked at information on their Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 three people in their homes who used the service. We spoke with the Registered Manager and two care staff.
We reviewed three peoples care files and discussed with them and care workers their accuracy. We checked three staff files, medication records, management audits, staff meeting records and the results of quality assurance surveys.
Updated
11 May 2019
About the service:
Your Life (Ferndown) is a domiciliary care agency that was providing personal care to three older adults living in their own homes at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe and were confident in the staff team describing them as honest and genuine. Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their role in identifying and reporting any concerns of potential abuse or poor practice. Risks to people were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff understood the actions needed to minimise the risk of avoidable harm including the prevention of avoidable infection.
Records showed us that staff had been recruited safely, including criminal record checks to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staffing levels met people’s care needs and choices and had the flexibility to be responsive when needs changed.
Staff supported people to take medicines safely. Staff were trained in medicines management and knew how to ensure that people received their medicines on time and as they had been prescribed.
People had access to healthcare services and were involved in decisions about their wellbeing. Partnerships with other care agencies and health professionals enabled effective outcomes for people
Initial assessments captured people’s care needs and lifestyle choices including any cultural or spiritual needs. The information had been used to create clear person-centred care plans that were understood and followed by the care staff team.
Staff received an induction and on-going training and support that enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. Opportunities for professional development had included national diplomas in health and social care.
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.
People spoke positively about the care they received describing staff as kind, caring and patient. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected. People were signposted to advocacy support if needed. A complaints process was in place and people told us if they had concerns they felt confident they would be listened to and actions taken.
People and staff spoke positively about the management of the service describing visible leadership and an open, honest culture. Legal reporting requirements were met. Quality assurance processes were effective in monitoring service delivery and improving outcomes for people when identified.
Rating at last inspection: The service was rated ‘Good’ at our last inspection carried out on the 14 November 2016.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.