Archived: Synergy Homecare - Burnley

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses. At the time of the inspection, 136 people were receiving a service from the agency.

At the last inspection, in January 2016 the service was rated overall as ‘Good’ with "Requires Improvement" in the key question of Effective. At this inspection, we found the service had improved and was rated "Good" in all five key questions. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work for the service. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and had their competency checked. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People were kept safe from abuse and harm and staff knew how to report any suspicions around abuse. Staff understood best practice for reducing the risk of infection.

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. Staff received effective training to meet people's needs. An induction and training programme was in place for all staff. A detailed assessment was carried out to assess people’s needs and preferences prior to them receiving a service. This meant that care outcomes were planned and staff understood what support each person required. People were supported with their healthcare and nutritional needs as appropriate.

Care and support was planned and personalised to each person, which ensured they were able to make choices about their daily lives. People had access to a complaints procedure and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon. Where people received end of life care this was planned and provided sensitively.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included seeking and responding to feedback from people and their relatives in relation to the standard of care and support.

Sevacare - Burnley is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The agency provides a service for people residing in Burnley, Pendle, and Rossendale. The agency’s office is located on the outskirts of Burnley. At the time of the inspection 177 people were using the service.

The service was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

We lasted inspected this service on 9 December 2013 and found it was meeting the regulations in force at the time.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations. However, we made one recommendation in relation to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Whilst there were policies and procedures relating to the MCA and staff had received appropriate training, the principles of the Act had not been embedded into the assessment and care planning processes. Following the inspection the registered manager sent us an action plan of how this was going to be achieved.

People using the service told us they were well cared for and felt safe with the staff who provided their support. Staff knew about safeguarding procedures and we saw that concerns had been reported appropriately to the local authority, which helped to keep people safe. Risks to people’s well-being were assessed and managed safely.

We found the arrangements for managing people’s medicines were safe. Records and appropriate policies and procedures were in place for the administration of medicines.

Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely. People were supported as necessary, with meal planning, preparation, eating and drinking.

Arrangements were in place to maintain appropriate staffing levels to make sure people received their contracted support. There were systems in place to ensure all staff received regular training and supervision. New staff completed a comprehensive induction and undertook a probationary period.

People were actively involved in the development and review of their care plans. This meant people were able to influence the delivery of their care and staff had up to date information about people’s needs and wishes. People told us they usually received care from a consistent group of staff. People and relatives spoken with made complimentary comments about the staff and the service they provided.

People, their relatives and staff spoken with had confidence in the registered manager and felt the agency was well managed. We found there were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people using the service.

People were involved in their assessment of needs and the development of their care plan. People's views were taken into account and they were therefore able to influence the delivery of their service.

Appropriate checks were undertaken when new staff started working for the service.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. People were given the opportunity to complete an annual customer satisfaction questionnaire. We saw the results of the questionnaires completed in May 2013 and noted all people had a high level of satisfaction with the service.

People were aware how they could raise any concerns and we found suitable arrangements were in place to respond to any complaints.

People's care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments. People confirmed they had discussed their care needs and care plan with staff from the agency.

We found staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to appropriate policies and procedures. Staff had an understanding of the safeguarding processes and knew how to raise an alert.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. People were asked their opinion of the service and were given the opportunity to complete a customer satisfaction questionnaire. We saw the results of the survey and noted people had a high level of satisfaction with the service.