Background to this inspection
Updated
6 February 2019
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.’
The inspection included a visit to the agency’s office on 15 January. The registered manager was given short notice of our inspection, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.
We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
At the time of this inspection the agency was supporting 30 people who wished to retain their independence and continue living in their own home.
The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.
On 15 January 2019 we visited the agency office and spoke with the registered manager, the service manager, the training officer and a care coordinator. On 15 January 2019 we also visited a person in their own home to obtain their views on the service provided. During the visit we looked at care records and medicine administration. We visited the person with a member of staff who had delivered their care.
When we visited the office, we reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the domiciliary care agency was managed. These included peoples care records, staff training, support and employment records and quality assurance audits.
On 16 and 17 January 2019 we spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives and four care staff by telephone to obtain some feedback on how they found the service provision.
Updated
6 February 2019
The inspection took place on 15 January 2019. The registered provider was given short notice of the visit to the office, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community.
At the time of our inspection there were 30 people who used the service. The Care Quality commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.
This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered in January 2018.
The service was managed by the 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.
People were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people's needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed. Infection, prevention and control procedures were in place and staff followed these.
Staffing levels were maintained to ensure that people's care and support needs continued to be met safely and there were safe recruitment processes in place. However, there was lack of consistency in staff providing support to people.
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. People’s needs and choices were assessed and mental capacity assessments were undertaken.
Most people we spoke with were happy with the care and support provided. However, some said they did not always receive the care required and staff recorded incorrectly in the daily notes. The people we spoke with did not want the specific details raising with the service, although we discussed this in general with the registered manager who agreed to discuss with staff the need to follow care plans and record accurately what care and support was provided.
The provider had a complaints procedure that was given to all people who used the service in the statement of purpose. Most people we spoke with said they were listened to and any complaints received were dealt with following the providers complaints policy and procedure.
Most staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their work and received regular supervision, appraisals and training. Some staff felt supported to carry out their work. However, some commented that some members of the team did not speak to them appropriately and on occasions were rude and abrupt. The registered manager agreed to look into this.
A system was in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys and meetings. Some people made their views known through direct discussion with the service manager and staff or through the complaint and quality monitoring systems, others although raised issues with us had not chosen to bring them to the attention of the registered manager. People's privacy and confidentiality were maintained as records were held securely.