This inspection took place on 12 March 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered provider notice of the inspection to make sure that they were available on the day of the inspection. This service was last inspected on 29 August 2014 and was compliant with the regulations we inspected.
Care Office is a small domiciliary care service, which provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service is offered to people who live in the area of Stamford Bridge and surrounding villages.
The registered provider is an individual and therefore there is no requirement for them to have 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.
Care staff had received training on safeguarding of vulnerable adults and displayed an understanding of the action they needed to take if they became aware of a safeguarding incident. The registered provider had policies and procedures in place to guide staff in safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse (SOVA), but these needed some updating to ensure they covered the two local councils’ expected working practices. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.
There were some inconsistencies in the recruitment practice of new members of staff and the registered provider did not have a policy and procedure for recruitment. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.
Staff received induction training and on-going training although no staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This meant there was insufficient evidence that people understood the principles of capacity and decision making. The registered provider did not have a policy and procedure on MCA. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.
There were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s individual needs. We were told by people who used the service and staff, that if a care plan said two staff were needed for a task then two people always attended the call.
People told us that they had been included in planning and agreeing to the care provided. We saw that people had an individual plan, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. People had risk assessments in their care files to help minimise risks whilst still supporting people to make choices and decisions. There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us that they would not hesitate to contact the agency office if they had a concern.
People were happy with the assistance they received with the preparation of meals.
People told us that staff cared about them and supported them to be as independent as possible and said that staff respected their privacy and dignity.
We saw that the registered provider had an auditing system in place, but this did not include action plans to evidence how the registered provider acted on any issues raised through the auditing process. Without this documentation the registered provider may find it difficult to evidence how they monitor and assess the quality of the service effectively. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.
Staff and people who used the service told us they had confidence in the registered provider and their leadership. Individuals were able to give the registered provider feedback about the service through the use of face to face meetings, reviews and satisfaction questionnaires.