Archived: Allied Healthcare Peterborough

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the number of different methods we used to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We looked at records; we spoke with four people using the service and four relatives of people using the service by telephone and six staff members face to face or by telephone. We also spoke with the registered manager and staff trainer during our visit.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

In the 10 out of 130 copies of people’s care records held in the office we looked at, we saw that risk assessments regarding people’s individual care and support needs were carried out and that measures were in place to minimise those risks.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) which applies to care services. The provider advised us that, at the time of our inspection, none of the people who used the service had a Court Protection, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) in place. The provider demonstrated to us their knowledge and we saw that the provider had DoLs and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) policies and procedures in place.

Records showed us that staff were trained to deliver safe support and care. We saw evidence that staff were checked for their competency and that supervisions and appraisals took place.

Records we looked at indicated to us that people who had chosen to be supported this way were assisted with their prescribed medication by staff who were trained and their competency to administer medication had been checked.

Is the service effective?

People and their relatives made positive comments about the care and support people received and that it enabled them to remain independent in their own homes. One person told us that, “My care is consistent, it is professional and it is friendly.”

We found that improvement was needed in the recording of people's wishes for their end stage of life care and support. We spoke with the provider about this during our inspection and asked them to take action.

Is the service caring?

One person we spoke with told us that, “They (staff) are very kind and attentive.” Another person told us that, “Staff are nice and cheery and (they) can’t do enough for you.” People and relatives that we spoke with told us that people’s dignity was maintained at all times by staff. They also told us that they were involved in the planning of their care and that staff respected the choices that people made.

Is the service responsive?

We looked at 10 people’s care records and saw that their interests and activities were documented. We also saw that people’s diverse needs had been recorded. People and relatives we spoke with told us that the care and support met their or their relative’s wishes.

Is the service well-led?

People and relatives of people using the service who we spoke with told us how staff assisted them with the support and care that they had agreed to.

Improvements had been made since our previous inspection which we carried out on 24 October 2013. We found that quality monitoring systems were now in place so that people were safe from the risk of unsafe and inappropriate care and support. However, we saw that there were still some gaps in the recording of a person's prescribed medication. We spoke with the provider about this during our visit and they told us that medication errors resulted in the staff member undergoing further training until they were deemed competent.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their feedback on the service provided. People we spoke with said that they were aware of how to raise a concern and the majority said that they would be confident that they would be listened to. Two relatives of people using the service we spoke with told us that they had raised concerns with the provider over the lack of consistent care staff and that this was yet to be resolved and was still on-going.

Staff had access to detailed care plans to ensure that they provided people with safe, appropriate, individual care and support.

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Effective staff recruitment was in place to make sure that people received safe care and support from suitable, skilled, and knowledgeable staff.

We did not see an effective quality assurance system in place. This was because the provider had improvements to make to the service around the accurate recording of medication administration and staff communication logs to ensure that safe care and support was provided to people.

There was an effective system in place for people to raise a concern or make a complaint if they wished to do so.