Amazed Care Services

Updated 13 April 2018

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 was 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 inspection took place on 22 March 2018 and was announced. The provider was given three days’ notice of our visit because we wanted to ensure they were available to support the inspection process. One inspector carried out the inspection to the offices, one inspector carried out telephone interviews and a third inspector undertook a home visit.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection. Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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 reviewed the PIR prior to our inspection.

During our inspection we visited the agency’s office and spoke with the provider and two staff members. We checked care records for five people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments. We looked at three staff files to check recruitment and training records. We checked the complaints log, accident/incident records and surveys completed by people who used the service. We also checked quality monitoring audits and records of spot checks on staff.

Prior to the inspection we had received 13 responses to satisfaction questionnaires we had sent out to people, their relatives and staff. We then followed these up with telephone calls prior to our inspection. Most people lived with relatives and we spoke with three of those relatives in relation to their family members care. In addition we carried out one home visit and spoke with a person and their family member. We also spoke with a further person and an advocate for another person by telephone following our inspection.

This was the first inspection of the agency as it was registered with CQC in February 2017.

Updated 13 April 2018

Amazed Care Services is a domiciliary care agency which provides care and support to people in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults, people with physical disabilities, younger adults and people who have a mental health or learning disability condition. The agency had a total of 12 clients of whom 11 received the regulated activity of personal care.

The inspection took place on 22 March 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider three days’ notice of this inspection in order that they could arrange home visits and telephone interviews for us. It also meant they could be available in the office to assist us with the inspection. This is our methodology for inspecting this type of service. The service did not require a registered manager. This is because it is run by an individual. The registered provider (provider) assisted us with our inspection.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. People had positive relationships with their care workers and enjoyed their company. Relatives said staff treated their family members with respect and provided care and support in a sensitive way. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in planning their care.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff employed to meet the agency’s care commitments. The agency ensured that people received a safe and reliable service. People were helped to stay safe because staff understood people’s needs and any risks involved in their care. Relatives were confident their family members were safe when receiving their care. There was a contingency plan in place to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event of bad weather. People who would be most at risk were prioritised. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed by the provider and reflective learning was used to learn from incidents.

Where people’s care involved support with medicines, this was managed safely. Staff helped people keep their homes clean and hygienic. Staff understood the risk of spreading infection and as such wore personal protective equipment.

People’s needs were assessed before they used the service to ensure the agency could provide the care they needed. Staff told us they were introduced to new people before they provided their care. People said their care workers always stayed for the allocated length of their visits.

Staff received the training and support they needed to do their jobs. Staff received regular refresher training and were supported through regular supervisions. Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in terms of recognising and reporting abuse. People were protected by the provider’s recruitment procedures. The provider carried out checks to ensure they employed only suitable staff.

People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had received training on the MCA and understood how it applied in their work. People had recorded their consent to their care.

Staff were aware of people’s individual dietary requirements and provided appropriate foods. Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and responded appropriately if people became unwell.

People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Each person had a care plan. Care plans provided guidance for staff and were reviewed regularly to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs. People’s histories were included in their care plans which helped staff provide responsive care.

People knew how to complain if they were dissatisfied. People and relatives told us they felt they were listened to and the agency were good at communicating with them. They said they felt the agency was well led and that staff were their friends.

The service was managed effectively, which ensured people received safe and well-planned care. The provider sought feedback from people who used the service through annual surveys. Where people made comments, these were acted upon.

Staff told us the provider supported them and made them feel valued. Staff also said they worked well together as a team to meet people’s needs. Team meetings took place regularly and were used to reinforce key messages.

The provider’s monitoring systems helped ensure people received a good quality of care that met their needs. The provider regularly observed staff practice at spot checks and carried out monthly audits of daily notes and medicines administration records.

The provider had good working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care and they kept up to date with good practices through training and professional journals.