Springboard Business Centre is a domiciliary care service providing support to older people and younger adults who live in the local community. The service is known locally as Quality Care Service although this is not the names registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The office is located in Stokesley.

Inspection site visit activity started on 22 January 2018 and ended on 1 February 2018. At the time of this inspection, the service was providing support to 36 people.

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.

The service is not required to have a separate registered manager, because the registered provider is an individual who is registered with us. 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.

Safe recruitment processes were in place and continued to be followed. Staff had up to date safeguarding training and understood the importance of reporting concerns. Risks to people were managed appropriately and plans were in place where required. Medicines had been administered safely but the administration of topical medicines such as creams was not always clearly recorded. People were supported by a consistent team of staff. Staff had access to personal protective equipment to promote good infection control practices.

A thorough induction process had been developed which included staff completing the care certificate. Training had been provided to ensure staff were kept up to date with current best practice. Staff were supported by management through regular supervisions and observations of their practice. 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 where needed were support to maintain a balanced diet and had access to their own GP. Referrals to other professionals had been made when required.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and people we spoke with confirmed this. People’s independence was promoted by staff who were familiar with their needs. Care plans had been developed to ensure they contained person centred information. There was a complaints policy in place.

Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor and improve the service but these were not always thoroughly recorded. However, it was clear action had been taken when areas of improvement were identified. People and staff spoke highly of the provider and told us they felt valued.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Mrs Beverley Harker is a registered individual who owns and manages a domiciliary care service from the registered location Springboard Business Centre. Locally the service is known as Quality Care Services, although this is not the name registered with the care Quality Commission (CQC). The service provides personal care and domiciliary services to people living in their own homes, including older people, younger adults and people living with dementia. The service provides services to people living within the Stokesley, Great Ayton and Ozmotherly areas. At the time of this inspection the service employed 16 care staff and provided care to 51 people. The service focuses on providing private care, but also provides some support funded through the Local Authority when needed.

The service is not required to have a separate registered manager, because the registered provider is an individual who is registered with us. 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 protected by the service’s approach to safeguarding and whistle blowing. People who used the service told us that they were safe, could raise concerns if they needed to and were listened to by staff. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and could describe what they would do if they thought somebody was being mistreated. Staff also told us that the registered provider listened and acted on their feedback.

Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment and enough staff were available to provide people’s care. People who used the service and their relatives told us that staff were consistent, reliable and provided the service that had been agreed. Staff confirmed that rotas were well organised and that staff knew what they were doing well in advance.

The service had health and safety related procedures, including systems for reporting and recording accidents and incidents. The care records we looked at included risk assessments, which had been completed to identify any risks associated with delivering the person’s care.

Safe systems were in place for assisting people with medicines, where this was part of their agreed care plan. Records and discussions with staff evidenced that that staff were trained and checks took place to ensure medicines were being given safely. Some more detailed information about creams would have been useful in one of the care plans we looked at.

People were cared for by staff who were appropriately supported and provided with training to help them carry out their role. People who used the service told us that their staff were competent and knew what was expected of them. Staff told us they were well supported by the registered provider, who had clear expectations and acted on feedback. The registered provider monitored staff performance during care visits, reviews and one to one discussions.

This service supported people in their own homes and only provided help with meal preparation, eating and drinking where this has been agreed as part of the person’s individual care plan. Information about the help people needed with meal preparation, eating and drinking was included in people care plans where this was appropriate.

People’s care records included information about their health and wellbeing, so that staff were aware of information that was relevant to people’s care. The staff we spoke with were aware of people’s health needs and could describe what they would do if someone was unwell or needed medical support during a care visit.

People who used the service told us that staff were caring, treated them well and respected their privacy. Staff were able to describe how they worked to maintained people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s care records showed that their needs had been assessed and planned in a person centred way. People who used the service and their relatives told us that they were involved in planning and reviewing their care service and that their views were listened too. Staff confirmed that they were introduced to people using the service before providing care and always had detailed information about people’s care needs.

People had written information about the formal complaints process available in their care files. People also told us that they had been encouraged to get in touch with the registered provider if they had any issues or concerns about their service. There had been no recent complaints about the service, but many compliments and letters of thanks.

The service had an appropriate management structure for the size of service. People who used the service knew who the registered provider was and told us that they were approachable and caring. People also confirmed that they had regular contact with the registered provider who checked that they were happy with their service. Staff told us that the service was well managed and organised.

Although there was not a formal programme of audits, the registered provider was able to describe a number of positive quality monitoring activities that were undertaken (which were also confirmed by people using the service, relatives and staff). Many of these were informal and not recorded, but no-one we spoke with as part of the inspection had any concerns about the quality of care provided by the service or improvements that needed to be made.

The health and social care professionals we spoke with as part of the inspection told us that the service was reliable and professional, and that they had no concerns about the quality of people’s care.