• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Allied Healthcare - Hull

Overall: No action read more about inspection ratings

Unit 4-6 First Floor, Albion House, 32 Albion Street, Hull, North Humberside, HU1 3TE (01482) 213842

Provided and run by:
Allied Healthcare Group Limited

All Inspections

12/05/2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 12 May 2014. A breach of legal requirements was found. As a result we undertook a focused inspection on 16 December 2014 to follow up on whether action had been taken to deal with the breach.

You can read a summary of our findings from both inspections below.

Allied Healthcare – Hull is a domiciliary care agency that provides care for approximately 250 people in Hull and the surrounding area. 

Comprehensive inspection on 12 May 2014:

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector and a specialist pharmacy inspector. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based upon observations during the inspection, speaking to people who used the service and the staff supporting people. We visited two people in their own homes and spoke to a further three people who used the service by telephone.

 During our inspection we reviewed the service’s systems around the safe administration and storage of medicines. We found that the medicines administration records were not always completed to support and evidence the correct administration of medication. Our findings meant that there had been a breach of the relevant regulation (Regulation 13) and the action we have asked the provider to take can be found at the back of the main report.

The care plans we reviewed showed people’s individual health care needs were addressed. Each care plan we viewed had been signed by the person or a member of their family. This confirmed their involvement in their care.

People were protected from care workers who were registered as being unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults through checks with the disclosure and barring service.

Care plans showed each person had a personal profile which described their personal preferences in relation to religion, food, drink, and daily routines. These had been reviewed regularly.

 Staff were supported through a programme of staff training, supervision and appraisal. These ensured staff were supported to deliver care safely to people. Whilst core training for all staff included topics considered mandatory in order to provide good care, moving and handling for example, no specific training for the care of people with dementia was available. This meant care workers could be attending to people without a full understanding of their needs.

 People were able to express their views and these were listened to. We saw records from telephone or face-to-face reviews undertaken every six months, providing the person consented to this and was able to participate. This showed the service had acted on people’s views.

Staff rotas showed members of staff were given calls within a small geographical area. This was because the service gave no travel time between calls. People who used the service and staff members told us this sometimes meant calls had to be cut short or were late.

We looked at the manager’s monthly internal quality assurance programme. Recent audits included checks that people’s care files were complete in content, medication records and missed calls. The manager also showed us a report they generated each month which showed what tasks needed to be carried out by coordinators [team leaders] each month. Although these audits took place we found care files did not adequately assess people’s medication needs and procedures were not in place for care workers to report changes in medication.

Focused Inspection of 16 December 2014

After our inspection of 12 May 2014 the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach.

We undertook a focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We found medicines were safely handled. Clear records of people's current medication needs were made when they first started using the service.  New procedures were being rolled out for reporting and responding to changes in people's medicines needs with plans to implement these across the agency by March 2014. Care workers were aware of the importance of the timings for administering some medicines, for example painkillers and this was recorded in people's care plans.  The manager was supported by the agency's Head of Medicines Management in reviewing their medicines policy in accordance with national guidance.

12/05/2014

During a routine inspection

Allied Healthcare – Hull is a domiciliary care agency that provides care for approximately 250 people in Hull and the surrounding area. 

Our inspection team was made up of one inspector and a specialist pharmacy inspector. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based upon observations during the inspection, speaking to people who used the service and the staff supporting people. We visited two people in their own homes and spoke to a further three people who used the service by telephone.

 During our inspection we reviewed the service’s systems around the safe administration and storage of medicines. We found that the medicines administration records were not always completed to support and evidence the correct administration of medication. Our findings meant that there had been a breach of the relevant regulation (Regulation 13) and the action we have asked the provider to take can be found at the back of the main report.

The care plans we reviewed showed people’s individual health care needs were addressed. Each care plan we viewed had been signed by the person or a member of their family. This confirmed their involvement in their care.

People were protected from care workers who were registered as being unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults through checks with the disclosure and barring service.

Care plans showed each person had a personal profile which described their personal preferences in relation to religion, food, drink, and daily routines. These had been reviewed regularly.

 Staff were supported through a programme of staff training, supervision and appraisal. These ensured staff were supported to deliver care safely to people. Whilst core training for all staff included topics considered mandatory in order to provide good care, moving and handling for example, no specific training for the care of people with dementia was available. This meant care workers could be attending to people without a full understanding of their needs.

 People were able to express their views and these were listened to. We saw records from telephone or face-to-face reviews undertaken every six months, providing the person consented to this and was able to participate. This showed the service had acted on people’s views.

Staff rotas showed members of staff were given calls within a small geographical area. This was because the service gave no travel time between calls. People who used the service and staff members told us this sometimes meant calls had to be cut short or were late.

We looked at the manager’s monthly internal quality assurance programme. Recent audits included checks that people’s care files were complete in content, medication records and missed calls. The manager also showed us a report they generated each month which showed what tasks needed to be carried out by coordinators [team leaders] each month. Although these audits took place we found care files did not adequately assess people’s medication needs and procedures were not in place for care workers to report changes in medication.

30 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We found people were consulted about their care and could have an input into how their care was delivered. People told us the manager did spot checks to see if they were satisfied. Comments included, 'The manager often comes to my home and checks things are ok.'

Information was available for staff to follow to ensure people's needs were met. We received positive comments about the care provided from people who used the service these included, 'Always puts me at ease I have grown to trust her with my more intimate care."

The office had facilities for storage of information and training, however, people with mobility problems would find it difficult to access due there being no lift.

There were enough staff employed to meet people's needs. The majority of the comments received from people who used the service were positive about the staff. Comments included, 'They all do a fine job from knocking on the door to leaving.' However, we received some comments from people who used the service about care workers being changed and the person not being aware of this. Comments included, 'Wish they would ring and let me know when my regular carers are moved about."

There were also some comments about care workers arriving late and leaving early these included, 'Care workers are often late and will leave early meaning I often miss out on some of my 30 minutes or they will rush me."

People were consulted about the service they received and had the opportunity to comment.

11 June 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were involved with their plan of care and had been consulted. Relatives who acted on behalf of people who used the service also told us they had been consulted about the care their relative should receive.

People we spoke with told us the care workers were very caring and kind. One person told us they felt well supported and could rely on the care worker. Relatives told us they were very happy with the support they received from the service.

People told us they were provided with information about how to make a complaint in an information pack provided by the agency. They also told us they felt they could approach the office with any concerns and the staff were open and approachable.