Background to this inspection
Updated
4 June 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:
The inspection visit was conducted by one inspector. As part of our inspection we contacted people who used the service, their relatives and staff to ask for feedback about their experiences. Telephone calls to people using the service and their relatives were made by an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type:
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
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.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
We visited the office location on 23 April 2019 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
Before the inspection we looked at all the information we held about the provider. This included the last inspection report, the provider's action plan and notifications of significant events. The provider had completed a PIR in November 2018. The PIR 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.
We contacted a local authority representative to ask if they had any feedback about the service. We spoke with four people who use the service and the relatives of four other people on the telephone. We received written feedback from two care workers.
During our visit to the office we spoke with the registered manager, nominated individual, the franchisor's business development manager and one care worker. We looked at the care records for four people, records of staff recruitment, training and support for four members of staff, medicines records, records of accidents and incidents, meeting minutes and the records of the provider's quality monitoring of the service.
Updated
4 June 2019
About the service: Surecare Hillingdon Limited provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in the community. The service is a privately-run organisation and the majority of people receiving care were over the age of 65 years. The service also provided care to younger adults with disabilities. At the time of our inspection, nine people were using the service.
The service was a franchise. The franchisor SureCare offered support to develop policies, procedures and quality monitoring systems.
People’s experience of using this service:
People using the service and their relatives were happy with the service they received. They were cared for in a way which reflected their preferences and needs. They had been involved in planning and reviewing their care and had consented to this. They liked the care workers who supported them and found them kind, caring and compassionate. They also had good relationships with the registered manager and team leader who they knew well and were happy to discuss their care with.
The staff felt supported. They were given the training and information they needed to care for people. They told us they were able to speak with the registered manager whenever they wanted and had regular meetings with them. There were effective processes for recruiting new staff, making sure they had a thorough induction and assessing their competencies.
People's needs had been assessed and planned for. Plans were regularly reviewed and updated when people's needs changed. Risks to their safety and wellbeing had been assessed and they were supported in a safe way. People's medicines were administered in a safe way and as prescribed. The staff monitored people's health and had responded appropriately when people became unwell.
There were procedures to investigate allegations of abuse, complaints, accidents and incidents. The registered manager analysed these to make sure improvements could be made to the service. People using the service and their relatives told us they felt confident raising concerns and that these would be addressed.
The registered manager had a very good knowledge of all the people using the service, their needs and the needs of staff. They had worked with people and provided additional support, such as helping people to access the community and take part in leisure activities. There were effective systems for assessing the quality of the service and making sure improvements were made to reflect people's feedback and experiences.
Rating at last inspection: The service was rated requires improvement at the last inspection on 15 April 2018 (Published 22 May 2018).
Why we inspected: We inspected the service as part of our planned programme of inspections based on the rating given at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. We may inspect sooner if we receive any concerning information regarding the safety and quality of the care being provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk