Archived: Independent Care Link Ltd

Independent Care Link is a domiciliary care service providing care to people living in their own homes. This includes younger and older adults living with a range of general or mental health conditions, which may include dementia and any related physical disability or sensory impairment.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

At this inspection, a total of 78 out of 93 people received personal care from the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from avoidable harm or injury within the service. The provider’s staffing, risk management, medicines and safeguarding arrangements for people’s care, helped to ensure people’s safety when they received care from staff at the service.

Recognised hygiene measures were assured for the prevention and control of any acquired health infection.

Health incidents and any near misses were routinely monitored and analysed, to help inform or improve peoples’ care and prevent any further reoccurrence when needed.

The service was well managed and led. Regulatory requirements were being met. The registered manager and staff understood their role and responsibilities for people’s care.

The provider operated effective governance arrangements, to ensure the quality and safety of people’s care and continuous service improvement. Display of their most recent inspection rating was ensured for public access.

There was an open and equitable culture at within the service. People, relatives and staffs’ views were regularly sought, to help inform service planning and any related care or staffing improvements needed.

Effective communication, record-keeping and information handling measures were established for people’s care. The provider regularly sought to engage and worked in partnership with relevant social, health and educational parties, to effectively inform people’s care

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was Good (published 24 October 2018).

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to infection control. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the Safe and Well Led sections of this full report.

The overall rating for the service remains Good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Independent Care Link on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

The inspection took place between 1 to 3 October 2018 and was announced. At the last inspection we rated the service overall as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post, who was also the owner and provider. 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.

This service provides care at home to older adults and younger adults living with a range of health conditions and needs; to live independently in their own homes within the Ilkeston, Kirk Hallam and Long Eaton area. At the time of our inspection, 102 people were receiving personal care as part of their care package.

People felt the staff cared for them in a way which maintained their safety and reduced any avoidable risks. These included the risks from infection or any possible harm. There was consistant staff who provided people with the care calls they had requested. All the staff had received the correct employment checks before commencing their role.

Information was provided in a format which supported people’s individual communication needs. Caring relationships had been established which enabled staff to understand and promote people’s individual needs or independence.

Some people had support with their medicines and this was provided by staff who had received the relevant training. Other training was available to support routine areas of care of more specific areas identified as a need by the staff.

When people required support with their meals this was done with the person taking control of their choices, so that they could benefit from a balanced diet. When support was required with health care needs, this was provided and all the required information was available during and after office hours.

People had been involved in the development of their care and received a review of their care needs. If they required any changes these had been made. Some people had support with their hobbies and interests or going out socially.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People had reflected that they were respected and their dignity was maintained when they received care.

The provider completed a range of audits and quality checks to drive improvements. In addition, they carried out an annual care survey so that people could pass comments on the care they received. The provider had displayed their rating at the office and on the website. They had also completed notifications when events had occurred. Staff felt supported by the provider in their roles. Any complaints had been addressed and actions taken to reduce the possibility of any reoccurrence.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There was an extremely positive culture within the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. We found all staff had a positive attitude and they were committed to the support and care of people. We saw that the provider was creative and innovative in responding to people’s support needs. The provider used audits to consider any service improvements for both the people using the service and the staff. Staff told us they felt valued by the registered manager and that they provided support in a way that engaged them as a team and developed them as individuals.

People told us they felt safe with the support they received from the staff. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Risk assessments had been completed to keep people safe and provide guidance to staff. There were arrangements were in place for administering and the recording of medicines. Where people were supported with their meals, they were given choice and encouraged to maintain their independence.

There were sufficient staff to support people’s needs and the provider ensured the appropriate checks where completed when employing new staff. Positive, caring relationships had been developed with people. Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.

Staff and people told us that the training enabled the service to be provided safety the training enabled staff to support people effectively and for staff to understand their roles. All staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records showed people were involved in making decisions about their care and support and their consent was sought and documented.

People were involved and consulted about the type of care they wished to receive and how it was provided. Everyone we spoke with confirmed that they had been involved in developing and deciding their care plans and that their views were listened to and respected. The people we spoke with were positive about how the provider responded to their changing needs.

The provider had up to date complaints policies and we saw how any complaints had been responded to and addressed. We also observed a range of quality assurance systems which the provider used to monitor the quality of service people received. These audits supported the care that was planned and delivered along with ensuring safety to the people and staff.

People told us they were happy with the service they received, and felt that their needs were being met. People said they had agreed to their care and treatment.

Relatives said they were happy with the care their family member received, and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

We found that the service was flexible and centred around individual needs and preferences.

Comments received from people about the service included ' I can't fault the service the staff team are brilliant, the staff do more than just care, the service provides personal care and is reliable and the service is very good.'

People told us they received a reliable service as they received the help they needed at their preferred times. People also said that they usually received care from regular staff who knew their needs.

The service showed a commitment to promoting dignity and ensuring people were treated with respect.

People said they felt listened to and able to express their views about the service. They also said that staff respected their privacy, dignity and independence.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken steps to identify and prevent abuse from happening.

We found that the service was well managed, and that clear lines of responsibility were in place. This meant that people received consistent standards of care and service.