Archived: APT Care Limited

Updated 4 June 2019

The inspection:

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

Inspection team:

One inspector carried out this inspection. The inspector visited the site on 25 April 2019 and spoke with relatives and professionals involved in the service on 29 and 30 April 2019.

Service and service type:

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults, people with a learning disability, younger adults and people with a physical disability and sensory impairment.

Not everyone using APT Care Ltd (Bedford) receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is a small service and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure they would be in.

Inspection site visit activity started on 25 April 2019 and ended on 29 April 2019. We visited the office location on 25 April 2019 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

What we did:

Before the inspection we:

Researched feedback received about the provider to CQC as well as online, reviewed information about incidents that have occurred since the last inspection, reviewed any complaints and compliments received since the last inspection, reviewed the providers own website, notifications we received from the service. Notifications are documents disclosing information about specific events the provider is legally required to tell us about.

During the inspection we:

Spoke with the registered manager, the care co-ordinator and a senior care assistant, gathered information from two care files which included all aspects of care and risk, looked at two staff files including all aspects of recruitment, supervisions, and training records, health and safety records, records of accidents, incidents and complaints, audits and surveys, complaints and compliments.

After the inspection, we:

Spoke to two people receiving care from the service and three people’s relatives, spoke to three care staff members, spoke to one health and social care professional.

Updated 4 June 2019

About the service: APT Care Ltd (Bedford) is a domiciliary service that was providing personal care to 28 people at the time of the inspection. Only 22 of those people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe and thought staff were kind and caring.

One relative said, “[Staff members name] is very good they are there most of the time and are an excellent carer. I love the way they talk to [my family member] [staff members name] sits on their bed and has a chat. It's just so nice to see. I don’t have to worry.”

The registered manager had systems and processes in place ensuring risks were well managed and care was personalised and reviewed.

Staffing levels, skills and experience were not always suitable to meet the needs of people. Some staff were not able to demonstrate a clear understanding of how to keep people safe and support consent and decision making.

The provider implemented safe systems for the management of medicines which included staff training and assessments of staff competency. However, more information was needed when recording the outcomes of competency checks and audits.

Staff had a good understanding of preventing the spread of infection by using the protective equipment and good hand hygiene.

The registered manager shared lessons learnt with staff and managed complaints and concerns in an open and honest way.

People told us, they felt involved and listened to in relation to their care needs. People also said staff respected their wishes and preferences and were supported by them to make decisions.

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

Staff supported people with meals and drinks and to access specialised healthcare when needed.

Care visits were timely and the registered manager and the staff team were clear about their roles and the impact of good care.

The registered manager showed ways they were working with other agencies and providers to share ideas and improve their service.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (Published 22 December 2016). Overall, since the last inspection, the service rating has dropped.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

Follow up: We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

The service met the characteristics of good all effective, caring and responsive and requires improvement in safe and well-led. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk