Archived: 40 Stonepit Drive

Updated 23 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 29 May 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 24 hours' notice because we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

One inspector carried out the inspection.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a 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. We reviewed the completed PIR and considered this when we made our judgements.

We checked the information we held about the service including statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law.

During this inspection, we spoke with four relatives of people using the service. This was because most people using the service had complex needs and were not able to tell us about their experience of the care they received. We spoke with three members of staff that included the registered manager and two care and support staff.

We reviewed the care records of four people that used the service, looked at three staff files and reviewed records relating to the management of medicines, complaints, training and how the registered person monitored the quality of the service.

Updated 23 June 2018

This inspection took place on 29 May 2018 and was announced.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 8, 9 and 15 March 2016 the service was rated Good.

At this announced inspection on 29th May 2018 the service remained Good.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses. It provides a service to older adults.

Aria Goldcare operates from 40 Stonepit Drive. The service provides care and support for people so they can continue to live in their own homes. Most of the people using the service were living with dementia and had complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were seven people using the service.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe. Staff had been provided with safeguarding training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them. There were risk management plans in place to protect and promote people’s safety. Staffing numbers were appropriate to keep people safe. There were safe recruitment practices in place and these were being followed to ensure staff who were employed were suitable for their role. People’s medicines were managed safely and in line with best practice guidelines.

Systems were in place to ensure that people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service

People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with best practice that met their diverse needs. Staff received an induction process when they first commenced work at the service and received on-going training to ensure they could provide care based on current practice when supporting people.

People received enough to eat and drink and staff gave support when required. People were supported to use and access a wide variety of other services and social care professionals. The staff had a good knowledge of other services available to people and we saw these had been involved with supporting people using the service. People were supported to access health appointments when required, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. 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 support this practice.

Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. People were given choices about their day to day routines and about how they wanted their care to be delivered. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Records showed that people and their relatives were involved in the care planning process. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service and it was used to drive improvement. Staff felt well-supported and received supervision that gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and exchange information.