Nautilus Care

Updated 19 June 2019

The inspection:

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.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type:

Nautilus Care is a domiciliary care agency providing support to people in their own homes.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that 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 provider one working days’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we had to be sure people would be available.

We visited the office location on 20 May 2019 to see the registered manager, speak with people using the service, review records and speak with staff members. We spoke with other people using the service and staff members, by phone the following day.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included the statutory notifications sent to us by the provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We also contacted the commissioners of the service to gain their views.

The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan how the inspection should be conducted.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, care manager, four people using the service and three staff members.

We looked at three people’s care files, two staff recruitment records, medicine administration charts and other records relevant to the quality monitoring of the service.

This report reflects the findings of the inspector and the expert by experience.

Updated 19 June 2019

About the service:

The service is part of a range of housing and care services provided for former merchant seafarers and their families. Nautilus Care is a domiciliary service providing ‘personal care’ to people in their own homes and within an extra care setting known as The Hub. Within The Hub people have their own apartments and there is a café, laundry, gym, hairdressers and communal spaces for people to socialise. Staff were available 24 hours per day in the Hub. Not all people were in receipt of a regulated activity. At the time of the inspection, 14 people were receiving ‘personal care’ and all lived within The Hub.

People’s experience of using this service:

The provider and registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Overall these checks were effective and had identified areas for improvement that were being addressed.

People told us they received support that kept them safe. This support was provided by staff who had been safely recruited, who they knew well and who arrived when planned.

Medicines were administered by trained staff and people did not raise any concerns regarding their medicines.

People’s needs were assessed, and person-centred plans of care had been developed to meet their individual needs. People’s consent to their care and treatment was sought and recorded in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. They provided support that protected people’s dignity and privacy. Staff knew the people they supported well, including their needs and preferences and worked in ways that promoted their independence. People were given information and were supported to make decisions and their views regarding care was regularly sought.

The provider was responsive to people’s individual needs. People’s care plans were detailed and reflected people’s individual needs and preferences regarding care. People had been involved in regular reviews of their care to ensure it continued to meet their needs. There was a procedure in place to manage complaints and people knew how to raise any concerns they had.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and had notified CQC of incidents that had occurred within the service and displayed their previous rating as required. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and enjoyed their jobs.

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

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated good. (Last report published 18 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

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