Cayon Care Service

Updated 24 April 2019

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 registered persons were 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.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older people, people with dementia and people with physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection visit one person was using the service.

Inspection site visit activity started on 14 February 2018 and ended on 8 March 2018. It included looking at a person’s care records and talking with the person who used the service about the care provided. We visited the office location on 14 February 2018 to see the registered provider and deputy manager; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return [PIR]. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We looked at information we held about the registered provider and the service. This included notifications which are reportable events which happened at the service which the provider is required to tell us about. We also sought information from Healthwatch who are an independent consumer champion, which promotes the views and experiences of people who use health and social care. We used this information to help plan this inspection.

During the inspection we spoke one person who uses the service by telephone. We talked with the registered provider, deputy manager and two staff members.

We looked at a range of documents and written records. These included one person’s care records, one staff recruitment file and key policies and procedures, such as how people’s rights were promoted and how the staff would respond to any complaints made.

We also looked at information about how the registered provider monitored the quality of the service provided and the actions they took to develop the service further. This included quality checks and reviews of one person’s care.

Updated 24 April 2019

Cayon Care Service is registered to provide personal care for people who live in their homes. At the time of our inspection one person was receiving personal care in their own home. Not everyone using Cayon Care Service receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The inspection took place on 14 February 2018 and was unannounced.

The registered provider had registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered provider was not required to have a registered manager in place and they had chosen to manage the service as a 'registered person'. 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 we rated the service requires improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been made to support an overall rating of good with the key question of safe rated as requires improvement. This was because the provider had failed to display their current inspection ratings on their website and at their registered office. This is a legal requirement to show people had access to the ratings to inform their judgments about services.

Staff took knowledge from their training, [which was an area of improvement since our previous inspection], to reflect their understanding in how to report concerns about potential abuse, and when it was needed, knew how to take action to make sure people were protected from harm.

A person who used the service commented they received the care they needed from staff to feel and be as safe as possible within their home. The person valued the same regular staff who supported them to meet their needs at the agreed times and were flexible if changes were required.

Improvements had been made to the processes in place to reflect the person’s up to date care needs with any potential risks to them and staff identified to guide staff practices in reducing avoidable harm. Environmental risks were also assessed within the person’s home to help avoid any potential accidents to the person who used the service or staff. Staff understood their responsibilities in reducing the spread of infections whilst undertaking their caring roles.

The registered provider showed us they had made sure following our previous inspection their recruitment arrangements were strong so people were not at risk from being supported by unsuitable staff. Staff had received further training following our previous inspection which matched the needs of the person who used the service.

The organisation of staff rotas showed the person who used the service had regular staff who they had formed relationships with and who knew their particular needs. Staff were supported by the registered provider and deputy manager to help them carry out their roles which included direct checks of their care practice.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The person who used the service told us they were involved in decisions about their day to day care.

The registered provider had made sure following our previous inspection their processes to support people where required with their medicines had been developed. People would only require support to take their medicines if this was part of their care service.

The person felt staff understood their care needs and wishes and these were followed by the regular staff who provided support. Where the person required support with their meals and drinks this was provided by staff who followed the person’s preferences.

Daily care records reflected when staff support was provided and the improvements in care plans matched the person’s needs. The registered provider and deputy manager had developed their processes to assist them in gaining an oversight of the care and support provided including any aspects which required improving.

The person said their regular staff knew them well and used their knowledge to respond to their needs in the right way and at the right time. People were supported to access healthcare services when required and staff were aware of people's health needs.

Staff knew what was important to the person who used the service and had learnt over a number of years how the person liked to be supported with their care which included respecting the person’s privacy, dignity and independence.

We saw there were processes in place to manage any complaints or concerns received. We also saw the person who used the service had been encouraged to let staff or the registered provider know what they thought of the care they received and comments made had been positive.

The registered provider was supported by the deputy manager and together they had developed their quality checking processes. Checks had been undertaken on the quality of care provided, so they could be assured people were receiving good care and on this basis expand the service.