Archived: Home Instead Care

Home Instead Care is a domiciliary care service which offers support to people in their own homes. The service supports approximately 110 people with diverse needs who live in the community, predominantly in central Hampshire. Services offered include a wide variety of support packages and community projects. Approximately 58 people are supported with the regulated activity of personal care.

There is a registered manager running the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

The safety of people, staff and others was taken seriously. They were kept as safe as possible by staff who were appropriately trained and followed health and safety procedures. They knew how to recognise and deal with any form of abuse or risk of harm. Any significant risks were identified and managed to reduce them, as much as possible. The service operated with a robust recruitment procedure which checked that staff were safe and suitable to provide people with care. If people needed support to take their medicine, the service made sure care staff did this safely.

People’s right to make decisions and choices for themselves was upheld by staff. Care staff understood how important it was to people to give consent and direct their own life. People’s capacity to make decisions was recorded, if appropriate and necessary. Relevant paperwork was, generally, included in care plans. People’s rights were protected by staff who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision

People were treated with the greatest respect and care, at all times. Staff understood how important it was to maintain people’s privacy and dignity and did so. Care staff made sure they provided people with care that met their individual needs, preferences and choices. People’s diversity was understood and people’s care reflected any special needs they may have had.

The service was well-led by a registered manager who had been in post for a number of years. The management team was described as open, approachable and very supportive by staff and people who use the service. The service thoroughly monitored and assessed the quality of care they offered. Any shortfalls or improvements needed were identified and acted upon, as far as possible. The service worked in the community to improve lifestyles for people use their service and those who may not.

People were able to give their consent to care and support whenever possible. There were systems in place to ensure people's rights and well-being were protected in line with legal requirements.

One relative told us they were 'more than happy to stay with them [Home Instead Care].' Another person told us their relative was 'much happier now,' and that Home Instead was '95% better than the others.' One person using the service told us 'The carers are wonderful.' Another person told us 'It's a good company, I would highly recommend it.' We reviewed plans and records of care for four people who used the service, and found they were person-centred and contained essential information about people's different care, health and welfare needs.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We found there were no significant issues with missed and late calls, or unannounced staff changes, and there were enough staff to meet the needs of people using the service. Systems were in place to ensure people's comments and complaints were always listened and responded to appropriately.

Individual needs of people were assessed and were continually reviewed, and care plans updated. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

We looked at safeguarding arrangements for staff training, talked to two caregivers and people who used the service, and reviewed care plans. We found that people were protected because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening. We saw how the provider worked in cooperation with other agencies in order to protect one person.

We looked at staff recruitment records and records of supervision and training. We found that people's welfare needs were met by competent staff who were properly trained and supported.

The provider had in place effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of service which sought people's views and changed practice as a consequence where required.