Archived: Apex Prime Care - Andover

Apex Prime Care – Andover is a domiciliary care providing personal care to people in their own homes. The service provides visits at key times of the day to support people to get up, go to bed and prepare meals. Visits last between 15 minutes and up to two hours.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care to 48 people in Andover and surrounding areas.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt comfortable with staff and were confident in their ability to provide care safely. Care visits were planned to fit in with people’s routines. People told us staff were rarely late and no-one had experienced a missed visit. When care workers were running late the office would normally contact people to let them know.

Care plans contained information about people’s routines and how they wanted to be supported. Risk assessments had been completed about people’s homes and to record if there was a risk of falls. Some people had been identified as being at risk due to other circumstances related to their health and well-being. This was recorded in care plans and staff were able to describe how they supported people to mitigate the risk. However, the information had not been consistently documented in risk assessments. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff received an induction when starting work at the service and completed a period of shadowing more experienced staff. New staff did not start working independently until they, and the registered manager, were confident of their abilities to deliver care. People were also asked for their feedback on new staff.

Staff knew people well and knew what was important to and for them. Where it had been identified as important, people were supported by a small group of care workers to support a consistent approach.

The service had moved from paper based records to an electronic system which staff were able to access on their mobile phones. Staff told us the sytem was effective. Office staff and the registered manager were alerted if any care tasks were missed.

There were systems in place for gathering the view of those connected to the service. People and staff told us they were able to raise ideas, concerns and complaints and believed these would be acted on appropriately.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 25 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The inspection was announced and was carried on 26 January 2017 by one inspector. The provider was given two days’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

There was a registered manager in place at the service. 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 and their families told us they felt the care staff were caring and responsive to their needs. However, not everyone experienced a consistent level of support when they contacted the office. People and their relatives also expressed mixed views about the leadership of the service. They raised concerns over the response to concerns about the service; and the lack of consistency regarding information in respect of the staff who would be supporting them.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff and the service provided. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

The risks relating to people’s health, welfare and the environment were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the service and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. People who relied on care staff to assist them with their medicines received them safely.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and were knowledgeable about legislation designed to protect people’s rights. Healthcare professionals, such as, GPs and district nurses were involved in people’s care when necessary.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect.

Where people required support with their food and drinks, they were encouraged to maintain a healthy, balanced diet based on their individual needs.

People and when appropriate their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.

There were systems in place to monitor quality and safety of the home provided.