CareKind

Updated 13 April 2019

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: This inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type: CareKind is a domiciliary care agency. A domiciliary care agency provides support to people in their own homes.

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: This inspection was announced 24 hours before the inspection took place. This was because the service was small and we needed to be sure that the manager was available in the office to assist with the inspection.

What we did:

¿ We reviewed information we had received about the service since the service was registered.

¿ We reviewed the information we require providers to send to us at least once annually. This information provides us with background information about the service, what it does well and the improvements the provider plans to make.

¿We also contacted the local authority to gain their feedback on the service.

¿ We used all this information to plan our inspection.

¿ During the inspection we spoke with one person using the service and a relative to gain their feedback.

¿ We spoke with the management team including the registered manager. The registered manager and their spouse was also the provider.

¿ We reviewed three people's care records and a sample of medication records.

¿ We viewed four staff recruitment files and other records relating to staff support of staff.

¿ We looked at records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 13 April 2019

About the service: CareKind is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. The service was supporting five people with personal care in their own homes at the time of our inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

Records relating to medication administration required improvement. Staff required further guidance on how to administer ‘as and when’ required medication such as prescribed creams. The way in which the manager assessed people’s competency to administer required further development.

We spoke with the manager about the improvements that needed to be made to medication management. They told us they would address this without delay. Shortly after our inspection we received confirmation of the improvements the manager had started to introduce. At our next inspection we will check these improvements have been sustained.

The majority of people’s need and risks were properly assessed with sufficient guidance for staff to follow in the provision of safe and appropriate care. Information on people’s needs and skin integrity required improvement. The manager told us they would address this without delay.

Staff had person centred information on people’s preferences and choices with regards to their support and the support provided was personalised to them and their individual requirements.

People told us the support provided was good and that they felt safe with staff. They said staff members were kind, caring and respectful.

People’s daily records showed that people received the support they needed in accordance with their care plan.

People and their relatives confirmed that staff turned up on time and provided the support they needed in accordance with the people’s needs and wishes.

Records showed and people told us that where their needs or choices changed, the management team tried their best to accommodate these changes.

From the records we viewed and the feedback we received it was obvious that people’s care was planned and well organised.

The provider’s complaints policy required review but everyone we spoke with was happy with the care they received. No-one we spoke with had any complaint about the service. Records showed that any complaints received were responded to in a timely and appropriate way.

People’s visits records showed that people’s visits were rarely missed. Visits were made on time and staff told us that they had sufficient time to provide people with the support they needed. This indicated that staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people received the support they needed.

Staff were recruited appropriately with the required pre-employment checks undertaken prior to employment to ensure staff members were safe and suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff were sufficiently trained to do their job supported by the management team. Staff morale was good. Staff told us they felt supported and that the management team were approachable and open. Staff felt they provided a good service to people. The people and relatives we spoke with agreed with this.

The systems and processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were adequate and appropriate for the size of the service. The management team demonstrated a good knowledge of their regulatory responsibilities with regards to people’s care and managed the service well.

Rating at last inspection and why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection. At the last inspection the service was good. At this inspection, the service was rated good again.

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.