Archived: ABC Building

Updated 9 December 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 the inspection, the registered provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that we require providers to send us at least annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Information provided was used to inform the inspection.

The provider was given 24 hours’ notice before our site visit and advised of our plans to carry out a comprehensive inspection of the service. This is because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to assist with the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience who made phone calls to people who used the service and their relatives. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

As part of the inspection we spoke with 4 people who used the service and two relatives. We visited the office and met with the chief executive, head of service and admin manager for the organisation. We spoke to two members of office staff including a team leader and five support staff. We also looked at six care plans for people who used the service, three staff personnel files, staff training and development records as well as information about the management and conduct of the service.

Updated 9 December 2017

This inspection of Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre took place on 21 November 2017. The provider was given 24 hours’ notice. This was because the service provided a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist with our inspection.

Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre provides personal care and community support to adults living in Liverpool and Sefton. The service had previously operated from a different location and moved to its current location in August 2016. Not everyone using Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre 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. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing personal care to six people living in their own homes or in sheltered accommodation in the community. These people funded their own care.

There was no registered manager in post at the service. The last registered manager left in October 2017 and the provider was making efforts to recruit a replacement. Appropriate interim arrangements were in place to manage the service in the absence of a 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.

All of the people we spoke with who used the service told us they felt safe when receiving care and support from the staff at Age Concern Liverpool & Sefton Poppy Centre.

Staff schedules showed there was an adequate number of staff employed by the service to meet people’s needs.

People told us that they enjoyed continuity of care in the form of a consistent team with whom they had built good relationships.

A breakdown of each person’s call time stipulated how they wanted to be supported.

Risks were well accessed and information was updated as and when required.

The majority of people who used the service managed their own medication but received prompts and reminders from staff. People told us they were happy with the support they received with their medication. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines.

There were robust processes in place to ensure that staff were recruited safely. This included a satisfactory DBS check and two references.

Staff understood how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns or allegations. Staff had received training in ‘Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults.’

Staff were assisted in their role through induction, observations and an annual appraisal.

The head of service provided us with a staff training plan and this showed staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively.

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 service operated within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us that consent was sought and staff offered them choice before providing care.

Staff encouraged people’s independence, in accordance with the provider’s ethos, whilst providing assistance and prompts where necessary.

Staff monitored people's health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. Health professionals were contacted on people's behalf when needed.

People who used the services of the agency were complimentary regarding staff; they told us all staff were kind and considerate and that they were treated with dignity.

Staff knew people well and understood how they wanted to be supported. Care plans did not always reflect this because there was limited information in some people’s files regarding their likes, dislikes and social history.

A complaints procedure was in place and details of how to make a complaint had been provided to people who used the service. People we spoke with knew how to raise a complaint.

Staff spoke positively about the management structure at the service; describing the provider as ‘approachable’ and ‘accommodating’.

People who used the services of the agency were able to provide feedback about the quality of the service.

Quality assurance surveys were issued regularly to capture trends and improve the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. This included meetings with people to ensure they were happy with the care provided and observations of staff.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.