New Charlton Community Centre

Updated 29 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This announced inspection took place on 7 November 2017. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and an expert-by-experience (ExE) who made phone calls to people to gather their feedback about the service. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service..

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about BMF Social Care Agency – New Charlton Community Centre including notifications we had received. Notifications are information about important events the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) we received from the provider. PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information in the planning of the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with two people using the service, four relatives, the registered manager and the provider. We reviewed four people’s care records, medicines administration records (MAR) for the two people. We looked five staff files which included recruitment checks, training records and supervision notes; and other records relating to the management and running of the service such as the provider’s quality assurance systems, complaints and compliments. .

After the inspection, we spoke to three care staff to find out how they supported people, and the support they received from the management.

Updated 29 December 2017

BMF Social Care – New Charlton is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a personal service to both older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of our inspection six people were using the service. The inspection took place on 7 November 2017 and was announced.

At the last inspection on 18 October 2016, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to medicine management, risk assessment and management, quality assurance systems and how they obtained consent from people. The service sent us an action plan on how they would make the required improvements. At this inspection, we found the action plan had been completed.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

The registered manager was experienced and complied with their registration requirements. People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager listened to them.

The service had policies and procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained on safeguarding adults from abuse and they knew what actions to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. Staff knew how to whistle-blow if necessary to protect people.

Risk assessments were carried out and management plans put in place to mitigate identified risks to people. Care visits were appropriately covered so people received the support they needed from staff. Staff recruited to work with people underwent checks to ensure they were suitable for their roles.

People were supported to manage their medicines safely. Staff were trained and followed good infection control procedures. The service had a system for reporting incidents. These were reviewed by the registered manager and actions put in place to prevent reoccurrence and to ensure lessons were learned.

People’s care needs were assessed and care plans developed on how identified needs would be met. People were supported by staff who were trained, skilled and knowledgeable. Staff supported people with their nutritional needs.

The service worked with a range of health and social care professionals to meet people’s needs. People had access to healthcare services they needed to maintain their health and staff supported them to attend their appointments.

Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People consented to their care before they were delivered.

People and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring towards them. Staff involved people in day-to-day decisions about their care. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy. People were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as possible. Staff knew people well and how to support them with their needs.

The service tailored people’s care and support to meet their individual needs and requirements. The service promoted people’s religious beliefs and culture and supported them to maintain these. Staff supported people to maintain an active lifestyle and to participate in activities they enjoy.

People and their relatives knew how to complain if they were unhappy about the service. People were asked for their views about the service. These were used to improve the service.

The service carried out various checks to assess the quality of care provided to people. Where required, they put action plans in place to improve shortfalls identified. The service worked in partnership with other organisations to improve the service and notified CQC appropriately.