Archived: Comfort Call - Blackpool

This was the services first inspection since its registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) on 01 November 2015.

Comfort Call Blackpool is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. The service provides support to people with a range of needs including older people and people with physical and learning disabilities. The service operates from premises based on Amy Johnson Way in Blackpool. At the time of our inspection visit Comfort Call Blackpool provided services to 78 people.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

We looked at the recruitment of four recently appointed staff members and found checks including a Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS), and references had been undertaken before they commenced their employment. However none of the applicants provided a full employment history on their application form. There was no evidence this had been discussed at interview or a satisfactory written explanation of the gaps sought. This was a breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014.

Newly appointed staff received induction training completed at the services office base over a five day period. This was followed by shadowing experienced colleagues until they felt safe to support people unsupervised. Staff spoken with told us the training covered everything they needed to know.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff knew the people they supported and provided a personalised service. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished their care to be delivered. People told us they had been involved in making decisions about their care.

People supported by the service told us staff who visited them were polite, usually reliable and professional in their approach to their work. Comments received included, “My carers are sometimes later than planned but they do turn up. I feel safe in their care they know what they are doing.” And “[Relatives] main carer is brilliant, absolutely outstanding. They are all good and I know [relative] is safe in their care.”

People we spoke with told us they felt safe. They told us they received patient and safe care and they liked the staff who supported them. They said staff were respectful, friendly and conscientious.

We looked at how the service was staffed. Most staff members spoken with said they were allocated sufficient time to be able to provide the support people required. However one staff member highlighted problems with the organisation of their visits. We identified the problem was mainly at weekends when the service is often short staffed. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to look into the concerns raised by the staff member. We have made a recommendation about this.

The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care being provided.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. People told us they received their medicines at the times they needed them.

Staff supported people to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake. Assistance was provided in preparation of food and drinks as they needed.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People who received support or where appropriate their relatives were involved in decisions and consented to their care.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns. Where people had expressed concerns appropriate action had been quickly taken.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks, house meetings and care reviews. We found people were satisfied with the service they received.

The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people in their care.