Tydeman’s Homecare is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own flats and houses. Not everyone using Tydeman’s Homecare receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks relating to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in post who was 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 said they felt safe. Comments included “I feel safe because I know someone is coming every morning.” Risks to people were assessed and care plans guided staff how to reduce the risks of harm to people whilst maximising their independence. Medicines were managed safely. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

People’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff were trained to undertake their roles. Staff said they felt well supported. 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.

People and their relatives gave consistently positive feedback about staff. They said “I couldn’t ask for better staff; they are friendly, polite, professional, and nothing is too much trouble.”

Care plans were person centred. People were involved in regular care plan reviews. The service was responsive to people’s needs. One person said, “Sometimes [relative] goes to another family member’s house to stay to give me a break. Tydeman’s transfers the care to that house so [relative] gets exactly the same help. It is brilliant. It makes such a difference to get that support so [relative] is happy and well cared for, and I get a break safe in the knowledge that [relative] is looked after there.”

There was a positive culture that was embedded within the day to day running of the service. Staff spoke highly of the support they received from the registered manager and the deputy. There were robust quality assurance systems in place. The service had good links with the local community. People said the office was easily accessible because of its location. Comments included “It is lovely because it’s local and I can drop in the office. [Staff members] are always friendly and helpful.”

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We carried out this inspection on 29 September 2015. The inspection was announced because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to make sure the manager, or someone who could act on their behalf would be available to support our inspection. Our last inspection to the service was on 22 October 2013. During the inspection in October 2013, the service was compliant in all areas we looked at.

Tydemans Homecare is a domiciliary care agency, which provides care and support to people in their own homes on a short and long term basis. The agency offers people support with personal care, shopping and housekeeping tasks. During our inspection, we were only inspecting the personal care element of the service.

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 registered manager was present throughout the inspection.

People’s medicines were safely administered and in a person centred way. However, the medicine policy was in need of updating to reflect staff often administered people's medicines rather than prompting or assisting. Records showed staff appropriately gave people their medicines, which were prescribed on a temporary basis. The system used did not always evidence this clarity with regularly prescribed medicines.

Formal supervision, to enable staff to discuss their work with a senior member of staff in a structured manner, took place on a six monthly basis. Staff regularly visited the office and received informal supervision with the registered manager every week. Details of these meetings were recorded in the communication book and signed off when read by staff. Staff told us this worked well and they felt valued and well supported. Staff received an annual appraisal and regular observational checks to assess and discuss their performance.

Staff received on-going training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to support people effectively. Staff had a clear awareness of how to protect people from harm. All staff were confident about promoting people’s rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence. They were aware of the ethos of the agency and demonstrated this in their everyday work.

The registered manager was passionate about offering people an individualised service. No care packages were accepted if it was thought they could not be met by staff. Staff were given travel time, so they were not late arriving for people’s support. Their visits were manageable in the time they had available, as sufficient staff were employed. Staff did not feel rushed and there were no issues with missed calls. People were generally supported by the same staff at a time which was convenient for them. This enabled consistency and enabled staff to be familiar with people’s needs.

People were very happy with the service they received. They told us staff were reliable and were rarely late. They were positive about staff and the organisation of the service. People knew how to make a complaint and were regularly asked for their views about the service.

People told us they felt safe and were well supported. People had a comprehensive care plan, which clearly demonstrated their needs, preferences and support required. People were involved in developing their care plan and had regular views of their care. There was a strong emphasis on enabling people to direct their care and to be as independent as possible.

Tydemans Homecare is a small domiciliary care agency. At the time of our inspection they were providing care to thirty people living at home.

People who we spoke with and their relatives told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. One family member told us “all the carers are lovely, my mum likes them all.” Another person told us “the carers notice when things aren’t quite right with me, I feel like they really know me.”

Care records we reviewed contained assessments and guidance detailing the care and support a person required. We saw that these had recently been reviewed and any changes to care noted.

The agency liaised where appropriate with other providers and agencies. Staff we spoke with explained how they worked with district nurses and GPs to ensure that consistent care was given to people using the service.

Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out and recorded. New staff members completed an induction and attended core training. Staff we spoke with told us that they had been through an application and interview process before starting in their role.

Appropriate systems were in place for the safe handling of medication.

We reviewed the provider's complaints policy and procedure. This showed that the provider had a system for receiving and responding to complaints. People we spoke with told us that they knew how to make a formal complaint but had no reason to because the manager and staff addressed issues and concerns raised immediately.

Tydemans Homecare is a small domiciliary care agency; at the time of our inspection they were caring for twenty people.

We spoke with three people who received care from Tydemans Homecare, two families whose relatives received care, and three members of care staff. We also examined records, meeting minutes and surveys. People receiving care told us "They treat me very well and always make sure I'm comfortable", "I feel safe when they're here" and "I'd miss them dreadfully if they didn't come, they're like friends". Families told us that the staff were familiar with people's needs and the management team were very approachable.

Staff had received an appropriate induction and were also supported through a system of regular supervision and appraisals. Staff we spoke with felt supported by the management team particularly in furthering their skills and development.

The provider had effective policies and processes in place to ensure the CQC were notified of safeguarding incidents. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the safeguarding reporting process and people using the service were aware they could report concerns.

The provider's quality assurance systems were effective in ensuring the performance of Tydemans Homecare was adequately monitored, and that the needs of people receiving a care service were effectively assessed.

People we spoke to told us they were satisfied with the quality of personal care and support they received. People said that personal care was performed to a high standard and that dignity and privacy was respected at all times. People said that care workers were reliable, arriving when scheduled and always staying for the contracted time. People who use the service and their relatives said they were involved in the reviewing of care plans and were able to discuss any aspects of the plans that concerned them. People felt able to contact the registered manager or a senior staff member and that the exchange of information was generally satisfactory. Several people said the staff were always polite and friendly and everyone said they were treated with respect. People commented that the staff were always correctly dressed and displayed their identification badges.