27 June 2019
During a routine inspection
The service was re-registered with us in June 2018 and this is the first inspection.
The last rating for this service was good (published 12 December 2016). Since this rating was awarded the service had moved premises. We have used the previous rating to inform out planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
At the time of the inspection the previous registered manager and a senior staff member had left. Two new senior staff started work in the service in April and May,2019, a few weeks before this inspection. A supporting manager from another branch had overseen the management of the Exeter service whilst a permanent manager was recruited. They continued to manage their permanent management post, sharing their working week between the two services. The new management team were positive and enthusiastic about their jobs. A care staff told us, “The new management team are very good. They are brilliant”. Another care staff said, “The new managers are very helpful, very friendly”.
Just before this inspection took place we received information about concerns which had occurred during the period between the previous management team and the new team. We were assured that the provider had taken steps to address the management of the service and new systems were being introduced to improve the provider’s oversight of the agency. However, these processes and systems have not been tested or embedded. .
Most people we visited or spoke with told us they were happy with the service. One person complained about a lack of consistency in the staff team and told us, “They send staff I don’t know and who haven’t done shadow shifts”. During this inspection the acting manager told us they had met with the person and taken steps to address their concerns and improve the consistency of their service. This showed they had taken the complaint seriously and taken actions to address the concerns. Other people told us they were happy with the service. A relative told us, “The carers are excellent” and a person described the service as “Brilliant!”
People received care from staff who had been carefully recruited and trained to meet their individual needs. There were sufficient staff employed to ensure people received a safe and consistent service. Medicines were administered safely by competent staff. Care staff had received training on health and safety related topics and followed safe procedures, including infection control.
Staff provided care in a kind, respectful and understanding manner. Staff understood people’s complex needs and received training, supervision and information to ensure people received an effective service. New care planning systems were about to be introduced. At the start of this inspection we found some care plans did not provide sufficient information about people’s preferred daily routines, but this was addressed promptly and when we visited the service on the third day we found improvements had been made and care plans contained good information covering all areas of need.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk