The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: One to One Community Care

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

59 Colley Avenue, Sheffield, S5 9JR 07909 591342

Provided and run by:
Mrs Susan Smith

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

14 November 2017

During a routine inspection

At the last inspection in June 2015 the service was rated Good.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘One to One community Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

At this inspection on 14 and 23 November 2017 we found the service remained Good. The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

One to One Community Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care. The service supports people within a ten mile radius of their office location in the Crookes area of Sheffield. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 20 people and employed seven care staff.

The registered manager had decided to step down and was in the process of de-registering. The registered provider had taken over the management of 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.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable regarding signs of potential abuse and how to recognise abuse. They were also aware of the reporting procedures.

Assessments in care files identified risks to people and management plans were in pace to reduce risks, However, some of these were not up to date and the provider was reviewing all care files.

We received positive feedback from both the people we spoke with and their relatives. They all told us the service provided good care that was safe.

Recent recruitment procedures ensured the right staff were employed to meet people’s needs safely.

Medication systems were in place to ensure people received medication as prescribed and safely. Staff had received training to administer medications safely. However, systems were being improved at the time of our inspection. Infection, prevention and control procedures were in place to protect people.

There was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives whom we spoke with told us that staff were always on time and they also had the same group of care staff who provided support.

Staff supported people to enable choice and control of their lives and people were supported in the least restrictive way possible. However documentation was being improved to support this at the time of our inspection.

Staff received training to be able to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us they were supported and received an annual appraisal.

People were supported in the community with meals and people told us staff offered choices and always made sure they had a drink.

We found the service meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff we spoke with had a satisfactory understanding and knowledge of this. However the registered provider was reviewing care files to ensure all documentation was up to date.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect at all times. People told us that the staff that supported them were very kind and caring. People spoke highly of the staff that supported them and told us the service was excellent.

Staff we spoke with understood how to respect people’s preferences and ensure their privacy and dignity was maintained. People told us they received personalised care that met their needs.

There was a system in place to tell people how to raise concerns and how these would be managed. Relatives we spoke with told us if they had raised a concern it had been dealt with by the registered provider immediately.

The registered provider was reviewing and updating the systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. They were developing an action plans for any improvements required and these were to be discussed with staff.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had access to policies and procedures to inform and guide them.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

25 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was undertaken on 25 June 2015.

One to One Community Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care. The service supports people within a ten mile radius of their office location in the Crookes area of Sheffield. At the time of our inspection the service were supporting 40 people and employed nine care staff. A registered manager was in post at the service and they, and the owner of the service also supported people.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager and the owner of the service were both present during our visit to the service’s office base.

We looked at the recruitment records for three members of staff. These provided evidence that the recruitment process in place was not robust and did not correspond with the provider’s recruitment policy. Whilst we saw evidence that references had been requested to ensure prospective employees were of good character, none of the three staff files reviewed during our inspection contained completed references.

Support workers, the owner and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to identify differing types of abuse. Staff told us that they would report any concerns to the owner or registered manager and were confident that they would take appropriate action.

We were not assured that the service had a sufficient understanding of the role of the lead agency in order to ensure that people were protected from harm by ensuring that safeguarding concerns were appropriately reported. Whilst the registered manager and owner said they would report any safeguarding concerns to social workers involved in people’s care; both individuals were unaware of local safeguarding policies and procedures and did not have a copy of these. During our inspection the owner printed a copy of the local authority procedures and e-mailed their local authority commissioner in order to gain information about training courses about the procedures.

We spoke with the owner, registered manager and with two members of staff about the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The MCA promotes and safeguards decision–making. The DoLS are part of the MCA and aim to ensure that people are supported in a way which does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. Each member of staff was knowledgeable about the MCA; however, our conversations identified that the owner, registered manager and one member of staff were less knowledgeable about the DoLS. Each individual acknowledged these shortfalls and the owner assured us that they would take action to address these gaps in knowledge.

Medicines were safely managed. People’s care plans contained detailed information and risk assessments about their medication. Staff had received medication training and a number of other courses relevant to the needs of the people they supported. Staff also received supervision and an annual appraisal.

The owner told us that the service had good links with local GP practices and district nursing teams. People’s care plans include information about their health care needs and were updated to reflect any changes and following conversations with health and social care professionals.

People were positive about the caring nature of staff from One to One Community Care. For example, one person described their care staff as, “Vey kind and caring.” Our conversations with people and staff demonstrated that the service had a clear knowledge of the importance of dignity and respect and were able to put this into practice when supporting people.

People were provided with explanations and information about the service and we found that people were involved in the planning of their care and the writing of their care plans. Discussions with people and the owner of the service demonstrated a commitment to promoting and enabling people to maintain their independence.

We reviewed eight care plans and found that they were reflected people’s individual needs and contained information about their preferences, backgrounds and interests.

A complaints process was in place. The owner told us that they had not received any complaints within the past year. People spoken with during our inspection told us that they felt able to raise any issues or concerns.

Care staff were positive about the owner and the registered manager and the way in which they led the service. When talking about the registered manager and the owner, one member of care staff stated, “They’re both very approachable and there to help and support you when needed.” A system was in place to continually audit the quality of care provided, This area of the service was being further developed by the recent recruitment of a specific quality assurance post.