KTG Social Care Ltd

Updated 15 June 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) 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 Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type:

KTG Recruitment Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a day and night time service to older adults and younger disabled adults.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Inspection site visit activity started on 25th April and ended on 30th April. We visited the office location on the 25th and 30th April.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about such as abuse. Due to technical problems, the provider was not able to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the adjustments in the report.

We carried out two site visits on the 25 April and the 30 April 2019. Over these days we received a range of records which included four people’s care records, three staff files and a variety or records relating to the quality monitoring and management of the service. We spoke with the care co-ordinator/field care supervisor and registered manager who took overall responsibility for the service. We were introduced to the managing director.

Following the site visits the registered manager provided further information to support the inspection. We spoke over the phone with one person who was able to discuss their views and six relatives. We contacted staff by phone and spoke with three staff members. We received feedback from the local authority and one health professional.

Updated 15 June 2019

About the service:

KTG Recruitment Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It is managed from well-equipped offices based in central Preston. The service was providing personal care to 11 people at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service was safe, everyone we spoke with told us this. The service had policies and procedures around safeguarding, whistleblowing and discrimination. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew who to inform if they had any concerns. Staff reported the service was not discriminatory and felt all were fairly treated. Risks related to people’s care and support were managed. The service had sufficient staff to meet peoples needs. Improvements had been seen to medicines management. However, we found inconsistences in documentation around medicines. These were addressed by the registered manager immediately. Staff followed safe infection control practices and reported having access to personal protective equipment for personal care.

We saw improvements in the documentation of consent in people’s care records. Where people lacked capacity, the service had carried out mental capacity assessments and held best interests meetings with family members. Care was person-centred and people’s preferences were identified. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care. People and their relatives were involved in the assessment process and they felt listened too. Relatives we spoke with were happy with the skills of the staff providing care. Staff recruitment was safe and inductions took place. Ongoing training was in place and the service had oversight of training to ensure it was effective. Staff had received regular supervision. We received positive feedback from health professionals.

The service promoted privacy and dignity. All relatives gave positive feedback in the way people were cared for. People’s needs were supported and staff respected people’s wishes. The service had a policy and procedures around equality and diversity and staff had training in this aspect. Records covered what was important to people, their likes and dislikes as well as aspects around peoples communication. The service was aware of advocacy services.

Care plans reflected individual needs, risk assessments were person-centred. Technology was used by the service, IT systems were in place for staff rota and policy and guidance documents. All relatives we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint and in cases were issues had been raised, relatives felt the issues had been acted on appropriately. The service cared for people at the end of life and care plans specific to this aspect were seen in case notes; these were person-centred.

There was a registered manager in post and the service had a clear organisational structure. We found improvements in audits and monitoring of the quality of the service. We saw evidence of partnership working and referrals to other agencies had been made appropriately.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated as requires improvement (published 2 May 2018).

Why we inspected:

This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will monitor as part of the inspection profile as a good service. We may inspect earlier if any concerning information is recorded.