About the service:

Home Instead Stourbridge is a domiciliary care agency (DCA) registered to provide personal care and support to people in their own homes. The office is located in the Stourbridge area the West Midlands. The service is owned by Fiftytwo 7 Care Ltd, a franchise of Home Instead.

Rating at last inspection:

Our last inspection of Home Instead Stourbridge was in December 2015. The overall rating at this inspection was Good, with no regulatory breaches identified. This report was published in February 2016.

We undertook this announced inspection of Home Instead Stourbridge on 28 February 2019. We also completed telephone interviews with a number of caregivers and this was on 6 March 2019.

At the time of our inspection, 68 people were using the service. Of those 68 people, 35 received personal care and the remainder received help at home, or companionship services. We only looked at the service for people receiving personal care as this is the activity that is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People’s experience of using this service at this inspection:

Staff of Home Instead Stourbridge are known as ‘caregivers’ and we have referred to them in this way for the purpose of this inspection report throughout.

People received an outstanding service. People who used the service and their relatives were extremely positive about the service they received.

We were told of numerous examples where caregivers had ‘gone the extra mile’ to ensure people received high quality, person centred care. Caregivers often went ‘above and beyond’ their expected job role so that people received an outstanding service.

Links within the local community were excellent and the service had won a number of awards, one of which was the ‘Best employers in Care 5 Star Award 2018’. This is awarded by the company Work Buzz who are market research experts across all sectors of business. They conduct annual independent surveys and the award is only given to the top few percent of businesses which they survey in a year. The service were also passionate about ways to raise money for charity and the team had already participated in a number of local events in order to meet this goal.

There was an exceptional open and inclusive culture. The service was extremely well led by a strong and supportive management team. All caregivers fully embraced the registered provider's visions and values to deliver a high quality person centred service, helping people to continue living in their own home, maintain their independence and lead happy and fulfilled lives. Caregivers consistently told us they felt the service leadership was outstanding. People who used the service also told us about the exceptional management within the service.

Caregivers were highly motivated, felt valued and enjoyed working at the service and the culture of the service was fully embraced by everyone. The management team actively encouraged caregivers to be involved in the continuous improvement of the service.

Positive relationships had been formed between caregivers and people using the service. Caregivers knew people well and were kind and sensitive to their needs, ensuring people's privacy and dignity was respected at all times. A ‘Matching’ process was used and this enabled people to receive care and support from caregivers with similar interests to themselves.

People and their relatives felt safe using the service. There were sufficient numbers of caregivers who had been safely recruited to meet people's needs. People were supported by a consistent care team and there had never been a missed visit at the service. People did not receive visits from caregivers who had not previously been introduced to them, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Risks to people had been assessed and caregivers knew what to do to keep people safe from avoidable harm.

Where required, people were supported to take their medicines in a safe way by caregivers who ha

This inspection was announced and took place on 17 December 2015. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to undertake the inspection. This was because the service provides domiciliary care to people in their own homes and we needed to make sure someone would be available at the office.

Home Instead Stourbridge is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 27 people received care and support services.

There was a registered manager in place who is also the registered 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.

People were safe and cared for by staff who had a good knowledge of the different types of potential abuse to people and how to respond. People had their individual risks assessed and had plans in place to manage them. Medicines were administered by care staff that had received training to do this. The provider had procedures in place to check that people received their medicines as prescribed to effectively and safely meet their health needs.

Care staff had been recruited following appropriate checks on their suitability to support people in their homes and keep them safe. The provider had arrangements in place to make sure that there were sufficient care staff to provide support to people in their own homes People told us they received reliable care from a regular team of staff who understood their preferences for care and support.

People told us they were supported by staff to make their own choices and decision’s about their care and support. People were actively involved in how their care was planned and their needs met. Staff understood they could only care for and support people who consented to being cared for. People told us that they were happy with the way in which care staff supported them with preparation of meals. People received a diet which reflected their choices and met their needs.

People received care and support from staff who responded to people’s individual needs. People told us that staff were caring and supportive and they were treated with privacy and dignity. People were supported by staff to maintain their independence and care was reviewed to support this.

People were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service through reviews and visits with the management team and satisfaction questionnaires. People said staff listened to them and they felt confident they could raise any issues should the need arise and that action would be taken.

People were positive about the care and support they received and the service as a whole.

The provider ensured regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of care that people received and look at where improvements could be made.

We inspected the agency office and spoke with the registered manager, the care manager and the recruitment manager. We also spoke with two staff members that provided care to people. We spoke on the telephone with one person who used the agency and two relatives of people who used the agency. We found people had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Staff we spoke with told us they supported people in their choices.

People were complimentary about the care and support they received. One person told us: “They are very caring and I would be lost without them”. A relative we spoke with said they: “Enhance X (relative) quality of life. They are worth every penny”. This relative also said: “Their approach is, never say no. They will always look for ways to resolve and improve”.

The staffing levels for the agency were sufficient to meet the needs of the people they supported. People told us they received their care and support when they needed it.

The provider supported their staff and had made sure staff were trained to an appropriate standard to meet people’s needs.

The provider had an effective process in place that monitored the quality of the service they provided.

People we spoke with told us they had not felt the need to make a complaint because they were satisfied with the service they had received. We found people knew how to make a complaint and felt supported in that process.

We inspected the agency office and spoke on the telephone with two people who use the service and two relatives. We found people were able to express their views and had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People we spoke with were treated with dignity and respect in their own homes. People expressed their views on how they wanted to maintain their independence and care workers we spoke with told us how they supported people in their choice.

People were complimentary about the care and support they received. One person told us, “I would be lost without them”. Another person said, “I am totally happy, everything is fine”. A relative we spoke with said, “The care workers are excellent and the care provided is extra ordinary”.

People were safeguarded as the provider had taken steps to ensure any potential instances of abuse could be identified and reported. Care workers we spoke to told us they felt supported by the manager to take the appropriate action where required.

The provider had systems in place to make sure checks were done and that staff were suitable before they were able to work in people's homes.

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.