Background to this inspection
Updated
4 April 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 was planned to check 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.
The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience who contacted people and relatives by phone. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience who took part in this inspection had experience of older people’s care.
Prior to this inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are required to be submitted by the provider to the Care Quality Commission to advise of important events. We spoke with the local authority to gain their feedback about the care people received. This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced accessing the service.
During the inspection, we visited three people who received support in their own home. We spoke with a further three people who used the service and three relatives. We spoke with four staff members as well as the manager and three members of the management team. We looked at the care records of six people who received a service and six staff files. We also reviewed records about staff training and support and looked at any compliments and complaints received.
We looked at what quality audit tools, data management systems and monitoring systems, the provider had in place. We reviewed past and present staff rotas, focusing on how staff provided care within a geographical area. We looked at how many visits a staff member completed per day. We looked at the continuity of support people received.
Updated
4 April 2017
The inspection visit at Copper Beech Homecare Ltd took place on 02 and 03 March 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people and we needed to be sure someone would be in at the office.
Copper Beech Homecare Ltd is registered to provide personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection, 34 people were receiving a personal care service. The office is based in Riverway House, which is situated between Lancaster and Morecambe.
Since the last inspection, the provider had employed a new manager who was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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.
At the last inspection visit, carried out in August 2016, we found the registered provider had not met the fundamental standards. We identified concerns in relation to Person-centred care, Dignity and respect, Safe care and treatment, Receiving and acting on complaints, Good governance and Staffing. We asked the registered provider to submit an action plan to demonstrate what improvements they were going to make. We used this inspection visit in March 2017 to check the required improvements had been made
During this inspection, we found action had been taken to improve the service. Staff had received abuse training. They understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure.
We found staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe. There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who used the service were met.
Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required. We found they were personalised and informative about the care people received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary. They reflected any risks and people’s changing needs.
Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they were competent and had the skills required.
The provider had put in place procedures around recruitment and selection to minimise the risk of unsuitable employees working with vulnerable people. Required checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed during discussions with staff.
We found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who used the service. The number of people who were supported and their individual needs determined staffing levels.
Staff members received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.
People and their representatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care packages. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
When appropriate meals and drinks were prepared for people. This ensured people received adequate nutrition and hydration.
Staff we spoke with understood the support needs of people they visited. They knew how individuals wanted their care to be delivered.
A complaints procedure was available and people we spoke with said they knew how to complain. We saw examples where a complaint had been received, responded to, investigated and the outcome documented.
The registered manager had sought feedback from people receiving support and staff for input on how the service could continually improve. Since the last inspection, the provider had increased the management team. They had introduced the role of senior carer. Staff spoken with felt the management team were accessible, supportive and approachable and would listen and act on concerns raised.