Archived: Carewatch (Southampton)

Updated 15 November 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 checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, looked at the overall quality of the service, and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We were aware that the local clinical commissioning group had an ongoing large scale enquiry in progress, and we took this into account when scheduling the inspection.

The inspection took place between 8 October 2018 and 12 October 2018. We spoke with people who used the service and their family members by telephone on 8 October, and gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our visit to their office on 11 October and 12 October. This was to make sure people we needed to speak with would be available.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. On this inspection the Experts by Experience carried out telephone interviews to gather evidence about people’s experience of using the service.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we had about the service, including notifications the provider sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We had not asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) because we had brought the date of the inspection forward. 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 obtained information about this by talking with the registered manager and other senior staff during the inspection.

We spoke with 15 people who used the service or their family members. We spoke with the registered manager, the area manager, a quality service improvement manager and five care workers.

We looked at the care plans and associated records of 11 people. We reviewed other records, including the provider’s policies and procedures, internal checks and audits, the provider’s improvement action plan, quality assurance survey returns and reports, training and supervision records, medicine administration records, and recruitment records for two recently recruited staff members.

Updated 15 November 2018

The inspection took place between 8 October 2018 and 12 October 2018. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intention to visit their office on 11 and 12 October so that we could be sure the registered manager or a senior staff member would be in.

This was the first inspection of Carewatch (Southampton) since they re-registered with us following a change of office. Our decision of when to inspect the service took into account information we had received from the local clinical commissioning group.

Carewatch (Southampton) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older people and younger adults. People using the service may be living with dementia, mental health needs, learning disability, autism, physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection the service supported 250 people. There was a small number of people supported 24/7 by live-in carers.

Not everyone using Carewatch (Southampton) received the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, which includes help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Following concerns raised by the local clinical commissioning group and identified by the provider’s own quality assurance processes, the provider had been executing a quality improvement plan which had delivered improvements. Some of these improvements in the areas of record keeping in relation to medicines and risk assessments were yet to be fully embedded in staff practice at the time of the inspection.

The provider had processes in place to protect people from the risk of abuse and other risks to their safety and wellbeing. 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.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff deployed to support people safely according to their agreed rotas. The provider’s recruitment process was designed to make sure only people suitable to work in a care setting were employed.

The provider had processes in place to protect people from risks associated with the spread of infection. Where accidents or unwanted incidents occurred, these were analysed to identify any learning which could improve the service for people.

The provider had detailed assessment and care planning processes which led to good outcomes for people. Staff were trained and supported to obtain and retain the skills and knowledge necessary to support people effectively. The provider worked with other agencies and healthcare services to deliver effective care and support. The provider supported people to live healthy lives and maintain their independence. Staff were aware of the need to seek consent for people’s care and support.

Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff supported people to express their views and to be involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff respected people’s dignity, privacy and independence.

People received care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. Where people raised concerns or complaints, they were listened to. People were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death in their own home.

The provider had managed improvements to the culture and atmosphere of the service. There were management systems and a quality improvement plan in place to sustain and embed these improvements. People who used the service and staff were engaged and involved in the service.