About the service:

Care 4 U Homecare agency is a domiciliary care agency. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing care to 81 people who were living in their own homes.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ People told us that they were supported by staff who knew them well. The service was well organised with visits allocated on a geographical basis. This meant people were supported by a small and consistent staff team.

¿ They said that the care staff were kind, caring and cheerful. One person told us, “They put a smile on my face”. We were told that staff were attentive to detail and ensured people were comfortable and content during and after their visits. They told us that staff were generally punctual, but if they were running late they would receive a message telling them so. We were told that some carers would, “Go the extra mile” to ensure their well-being and happiness.

¿ Staff were diligent to people’s safety and security. They demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding policy and procedures and were vigilant to any signs of abuse. Where risk to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been identified care plans were put in place to manage these risks. Care plans were person-centred and provided staff with the information they needed to provide care and support in a way that met people’s needs and preferences.

¿ Staff selection procedures systems ensured that staff were safely recruited, and ongoing training provided staff with up to date knowledge and understanding of their care and support responsibilities.

¿ People told us that the care staff had enough time to perform tasks and would spend time listening to what they had to say. They told us that they knew their staff well, and always knew who would be visiting them.

¿ Medicines were managed in line with good practice guidance, and staff were knowledgeable about control of infection. They liaised with health professionals where necessary to ensure that people received timely medical intervention.

¿ People told us that they knew how to complain, but those we spoke with said that they had no cause to complain. When we reviewed the complaints log we saw that complaints had been investigated fully and where they had been substantiated appropriate remedies were put in place.

¿ There were processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service, and people were given opportunities to provide feedback on the quality of their support.

¿ The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection and was supported in the day to day management of the service by an administrator. The management team were open and supportive to staff and understood their responsibilities to operate the service safely and effectively.

The service met the characteristics of good in all areas. More information is in the full report.

Care 4 U Home Care Agency Limited is based in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. The service provides personal care and domestic support to people over the age of 18 years with a variety of health and social care needs who live in their own homes. On the day of the inspection the service looked after 75 people.

At the time of the inspection there was 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.

The service were last inspected in 2014 when the service were issued with an action to regularly update plans of care. We found at this inspection that care records had been updated and people told us staff talked to them about their care.

Staff were aware of and had been trained in safeguarding procedures to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service.

Risk assessments for health needs or environmental hazards helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service but did not restrict their lifestyles.

People were supported to take a healthy diet, if required and staff were trained in food safety.

Plans of care were individual to each person and showed staff had taken account of their wishes. Plans of care were regularly reviewed.

People who used the service were assisted to attend appointments and other activities if this was part of their care package.

The agency asked for people’s views around how the service was performing and we saw evidence that the manager responded to their views.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. There had not been any major concerns since the last inspection.

We observed a good rapport between people who used the service and staff. We saw that staff appeared to know people well and understand their needs.

Staff were recruited using current guidelines to help minimise the risk of abuse to people who used the service.

Staff were trained in medicines administration and supported people to take their medicines if it was a part of their care package.

Staff received an induction and were supported when they commenced work to become competent to work with vulnerable people. Staff were well trained and supervised to feel confident within their roles. Staff were encouraged to take further training in health and social care topics.

Management conducted sufficient audits to ensure the service was performing well.

The office was suitable for providing a domiciliary care service and was staffed during office hours and there was an on call service for people to contact out of normal working hours.

People who used the service thought managers were accessible and available to talk to.

Staff were trained in infection prevention and control and issued with personal equipment to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service.

During the visit, we spoke with two people who use the service. They told us the care plans were explained to them by staff.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They told us the staff were friendly and supportive and always explained what they were doing. One person told us the staff occasionally arrived late but they were happy with the overall conduct of the care staff.

The people we spoke with told us that they had no concerns about the care they received. They told us that if they had any concerns or complaints, they would speak to the Registered Manager.

The people we spoke with were positive about the quality of service they received from the agency. Everyone told us that the agency was reliable and that if a care worker was going to be late then the agency contacted them to let them know. Comments from people included:

“Very very good.”

“They listen to my requests and do everything I ask.”

“They respect my privacy and dignity.”

I feel confident and safe with them. I have no hesitation in stating 10 out 10.”

“This is the best organisation out of the three I have had.”

“Staff are clean, tidy and always wear their uniform and gloves.”

“New staff are trained up the day before with (an experienced) staff member. They get to know me and I get to know them too.”

“Two staff are in particularly excellent, they follow my routine, some of the other staff can be lackadaisical”.

We saw that feedback questionnaires asking for people’s views of the service were sent out in 2011. The agency had had a good response to these with 62 questionnaires returned out of the 90 sent out. Comments recorded on the returned forms included:

“Mum wants to stay living independently. So homecare helps us.”

“Continuity of staff has been good for mum, as it confuses her seeing too many people.”

“Every carer is helpful.”

We spoke with nine people who used the service or were a relative of a person who used the service. Most people made positive comments about the service that was provided. Comments we received from people we spoke with included “I’ve got no complaints what so ever, I’m very satisfied” and “They are absolutely marvellous”.

We found that there were procedures in place to minimise the risk of cross infection to people who used the service and care staff. Most of the people we spoke with told us they were happy with the hygiene practices of staff. One person told us they had previously reported concerns in this area, which had been resolved.

There were adequate numbers of care staff to meet people’s needs. People generally received support from regular care staff at the visit times that had been agreed.

We saw that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. However we found that people’s care records were not always detailed, accurate, complete and up to date.