Archived: Lotus Care

Updated 30 June 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.

Before we visited Sydni Centre (also known as Lotus Care) we reviewed the information we held about the service, including, the statutory notifications the service had sent to us and the 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 improvements they plan to make. We were able to review the information in the PIR during our inspection and found it reflected how the service operated. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law.

We also contacted commissioners of the service to find out their views of the service provided. Commissioners are people who contract care and support services provided to people. They had no further information to tell us that we were not already aware of.

We conducted telephone interviews with 16 people who used the service and four relatives to obtain their views of the service they received.

The office visit took place on 1 June 2017 and was announced. We told the provider we would be coming so they could ensure they would be available to speak with us and arrange for us to speak with care workers.

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experiences of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Our expert by experience had experience of older people and dementia care.

During our visit we spoke with three care workers, the field supervisor, a care coordinator, the training officer, the recruitment officer, the acting deputy manager, the new manager and the provider.

We reviewed five people's care records and daily records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We checked three staff files to see whether staff had been recruited safely and were trained to deliver the care and support people required.

We also checked medicine records, complaints, and the provider’s own checks to ensure the service operated safely and effectively to provide quality care to people.

Updated 30 June 2017

This inspection took place on 1 June 2017. The inspection was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our inspection. This was to make sure we could meet with the manager of the service and care workers on the day of our inspection.

Sydni Centre (also known as Lotus Care) is a domiciliary care service which is registered to provide personal care support to people in their own homes. At the time of our visit the service supported 155 people with personal care and employed 63 care workers.

A new manager had joined the service on the day of our inspection. The manager told us they were planning to submit an application to us so they can be ‘registered’. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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.

People received their care visits from care workers they knew. Care calls were consistently made at, and for the length of the time agreed. There were enough care workers to provide all planned care visits to meet people’s needs effectively and people were satisfied with the service they received.

Staff had been recruited safely and received a comprehensive induction when they began working at the service to prepare them for their role. Care workers received training the provider considered essential to meet people’s needs. Care workers practices were regularly checked to make sure they worked in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.

People and relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Risks to people’s safety were assessed. However, some risk assessments lacked the detail care workers needed to ensure they kept people and themselves safe. Known risks were not always recorded in care plans. Action was being taken to address this. Despite the omissions in records care workers understood the risks associated with people’s care and how these should be managed.

The provider had developed systems to gather feedback from people so they could use the information to improve the quality of the service provided. People saw health professionals when needed. Support was given to people who required help with eating and drinking. Systems were in place to manage people’s medicines safely and staff had received training to do this.

The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People made their own decisions about their care and support. Care workers gained people’s consent before they provided personal care and respected people’s decisions. Staff had been trained to understand how to protect people from abuse.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by care workers. Where possible, care workers encouraged people to be independent. People told us care workers had a caring attitude and had the right skills and experience to provide the care and support required.

People were involved in how their care and support was planned and delivered. Care records provided staff with information about people’s backgrounds, preferences and needs to enable them to provide personalised care and build relationships with people.

The provider had established procedures to check and monitor the quality and safety of the service people received. However, these were not always effective and required further improvement.

Staff felt supported and valued by the management team who were accessible and responsive. Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s policy.