Archived: Franklin Domicliary Care Agency

Updated 20 July 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 8 June 2016. It was announced and was carried out by one adult social care inspector. The provider was given 24 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office to meet with us.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications regarding safeguarding, accidents and changes which the provider had informed us about. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also looked at previous inspection reports. We received 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.

During the inspection visit we looked at records which related to people's individual care. We looked at three people's care planning documentation and other records associated with running a community care service. This included two recruitment records and the care staff rota. We also reviewed records required for the management of the service such as audits, statement of purpose, satisfaction surveys and the complaints procedure. During our visit to the service we spoke with the registered manager and two care staff. We visited two people in their own home. Other people living in the flats were given the opportunity to meet with us but declined the offer. We telephoned and spoke with three relatives. We spoke with a visiting Community Psychiatric Nurse [CPN].

We received information from Healthwatch. They are an independent body who hold key information about the local views and experiences of people receiving care. CQC has a statutory duty to work with Healthwatch to take account of their views and to consider any concerns that may have been raised with them about this service. We also consulted North Yorkshire County Council to see if they had any feedback about the service, and we have incorporated this in our report.

Updated 20 July 2016

We undertook this announced inspection on the 8 June 2016. At the previous inspection, which took place on 22 April 2014 the service met all of the regulations that we assessed.

Franklin Domiciliary Care provides supported living to people in their own homes which was within a single block of flats named Carpenter Court. People who use the service have mental health needs. At the time of our inspection the service supported ten people who lived in single occupancy properties at Carpenter Court. The service provided domestic and social support with some personal care to a small number of people. Franklin Domiciliary Care Agency employs six support staff and a registered manager. The agency office is based on site.

There was a registered manager at this service. 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.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and staff knew how to protect people from avoidable harm. Risk assessments and risk management plans were in place. They contained detailed guidance for staff about how to minimise the risk of harm.

There had been a period of high staff turnover, but this had begun to settle down due to the recruitment of new staff. There were sufficient staff employed to cover the number of hours provided across the service. The service used other care staff to fill in gaps in rotas within the organisation and who knew people the agency provided a service for. This meant that people who used the service were provided with a consistent service.

Staff told us the registered manager and other senior staff, employed by the service, were supportive and approachable. They also confirmed to us that the on call arrangements were well organised, and that they could seek advice and help out of hours if necessary. This meant there was good oversight of the issues across the service, and staff were confident about the management structures and who to seek advice from.

When new staff were recruited we saw the service had robust checks in place to ensure people employed were suitable to work with people who used the service.

Care plans were comprehensive and had associated risk assessments. Medicines were safely managed. Some of the people who used the service were supported with taking their prescribed medication and staff told us they were trained and competent to assist people with this.

Staff described feeling well supported by their managers. We saw evidence of supervisions taking place on a routine basis. This meant staff had the opportunity to reflect on and develop their practice.

People received support from staff who had access to appropriate training and knew how to meet people’s needs.

People were protected because staff at the service were aware of and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals and had a health action plan. This meant people’s health care needs were being appropriately supported.

There was access to varied and balanced diets, people were involved in planning and, where possible, making meals.

People were supported to be as independent as they could be and some people worked in local community organisations.

People who used the service and their relatives understood how to make complaints. Complaints were responded to appropriately by the registered manager.

Systems and processes were in place to monitor the service and make improvements where they could. This included internal audits and regular contact with people using the service, to check they were satisfied with their care packages. Policies and procedures had been updated to ensure they were in line with current guidance and legislation.