About the service:

Acorn Homecare is a home care service. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 91 people in their own home. People supported included older people, younger people and people living with dementia.

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

People’s experience using the service:

• People received a service that was safe. The provider had systems and processes in place to manage medicines safely and protect people from the risk of harm and abuse.

• People received care and support from staff who were trained sufficiently and had the right skills and knowledge. People’s care and support led to good outcomes.

• Care workers had developed good relationships with people they supported. They respected people’s dignity and privacy, and promoted their independence.

• People’s care and support met their needs and reflected their preferences.

• Management processes were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. There was a positive, open and empowering culture.

Rating at last inspection:

• At the last inspection the service was rated Good (15 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

• This was a planned inspection to check that this service remained Good.

Follow up:

• We did not identify any concerns at this inspection. We will therefore re-inspect this service within our published timeframe for services rated good. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

This inspection took place on 15 November 2016 and was announced.

Acorn Homecare is a domiciliary care service which offers support to people in their own homes. The service supports approximately 90 people with diverse needs who live in the community. Services offered include a wide variety of support packages.

There is a registered manager running the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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, staff and others were kept as safe as possible by staff who were appropriately trained and followed health and safety and safeguarding procedures. They knew how to recognise and manage any form of abuse or risk of harm. Risk assessments advised staff how to reduce risks, as much as possible. The recruitment procedure checked that staff were safe and suitable to provide people with care. Care staff provided people with the help they needed to take their medicines safely.

Care staff made sure they provided people with care that met their individual needs, preferences and choices People were encouraged to make decisions and choices about their daily care. Staff upheld people’s legal rights with regard to decision making and choice. People’s rights were protected by a management team who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision

People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted by a kind and compassionate staff team. Staff understood how important it was to maintain people’s privacy and dignity and knew how to do so. People’s diversity was understood and people were treated as individuals. Their care reflected any special needs they may have had.

People’s needs and wishes were met by a highly responsive staff team who were able to deal with unplanned care situations effectively. They offered flexible and sensitive care to people whose needs could change quickly.

The service was well-led by a registered manager who was highly thought of by people, staff and other professionals. Staff felt valued and supported by the registered manager and colleagues which was reflected in the standard of care they were able to give people. The service monitored and assessed the quality of care they offered and made any necessary improvements.

We found that people and their relatives were involved in planning people’s care and support and that their consent had been obtained and documented. One relative told us, “I have power of attorney and that keeps me involved with all the discussions and decisions about my relative’s care”.

People told us that they were satisfied with the care and support they received and that it met their needs. One person said, “When I started with them they asked me how I like things done and the manager asked about risks and things. I’d say they were thorough”. We found that the service was responsive to people’s changing needs and that care provided was well documented.

We found that there were sufficient care workers to meet the needs of the people who used the service and that they had received appropriate training and practical experience for the role. Staff told us they felt well supported in their work and professional development.

We found that the provider had a number of effective processes in place to monitor staff performance and the satisfaction of people and their relatives with the care provided. We saw examples of changes procedures as a result of lessons learned.

People told us that they had confidence in the service complaints procedure and we found that it had been used effectively. One person told us, “I haven’t made a complaint because frankly they’ve been a big improvement on the last company we used”.

People told us that they felt fully involved in making decisions about their care. We saw evidence in care plans that people had signed the plan and staff told us that they used the plans to support them delivering the care needed. One person told us the carers were “Absolutely superb.”

We spoke with seven people who used the service. They all told us they were happy with the services received, felt safe, and that the staff were “…extremely nice and put you at your ease.”

We spoke with four staff who told us that they had received training in the past year such as moving and handling, dementia care, medication management and Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults (SOVA). They said they were kept up to date with people's needs so they felt confident when visiting people even for the first time.

We noted a survey had been sent out to all people using the service and approximately 60 replies had been received. We noted a couple of the many comments made; one said " Very conscientious and willing workers." and another "Very good, helpful and enthusiastic care." There were some comments about inconsistent times of care visits but all rated the service as good, very good or excellent.