Archived: Administrative Offices

Updated 14 October 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.

The inspection took place on 28 July 2016, with telephone calls to people using the service on 1, 2 and 4 August 2016. It was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector with support from an expert-by-experience to assist with telephone calls. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 reviewed the content of this. We also looked at all the information we held about the service. This included information about events happening within the service and which the provider or manager must tell us about by law. We sought feedback from the local authority's quality assurance team and two commissioners of services. We only received feedback from the quality assurance team.

During our inspection of the office, we spoke with the registered manager and office manager. We spoke with the staff member who completed assessments, reviews and competency assessments for staff. We interviewed two care coordinators and three members of care staff. We reviewed care plans, reviews and assessments for four people using the service and a sample of computer records. We looked at four staff files and examined a sample of other records associated with the quality and safety of the service.

We sent questionnaires to 50 people who used the service and their relatives, and 47 staff members. We received responses from 28 people who used the service and three of their family members. We also received responses from 13 staff members. We analysed the information these surveys contained to help in our evaluation of the service. We wrote to 25 other people who used the service to seek their permission to interview them by telephone, 15 of whom agreed to speak with us when we called. Others were not available, did not accept withheld numbers for incoming calls, or did not wish to participate.

Updated 14 October 2016

The inspection took place on 28 July 2016, with telephone calls to people using the agency on 1, 2 and 4 August 2016. It was announced.

The service provides support with personal care to people living in their own homes. It also provides some social support and help with domestic tasks if this is needed as part of the care package. At the time of our inspection, the service was providing support to approximately 120 people.

There was a registered manager in post who was also the provider's nominated representative. 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 received a service that was safe. Where people needed support with their medicines, staff were trained and assessed to ensure they were competent to assist people safely. There had been problems with ensuring people were supported by sufficient staff. However, improvements were in progress to ensure that staff were able to meet people's needs safely. Staff were recruited in a way that contributed towards protecting people from the employment of staff who were not suitable to work in care. They were aware of their obligations to report any concerns that people were at risk of harm or abuse and of the need to work in a safe way.

People received support from staff who were trained and competent to meet their needs. People felt that their regular care staff understood how to support them properly. Staff recognised the importance of seeking consent from people before they began to deliver care. Training was available to support them to understand people's rights to make decisions about their care and what to do if people were not able to understand the implications of their choices.

Staff understood the importance of making sure that people had enough to eat and access to drinks where this was a part of people's care packages. Where people did not need support with this, staff were aware that they needed to ensure people had drinks in particular in easy reach. Staff were aware of the importance of reporting any concerns about people's health so that they could receive medical advice promptly if it was needed.

People were involved in discussions about their care and staff were aware of people's individual needs and preferences. People had developed warm and caring relationships with their regular staff team, who supported them with respect for their privacy, dignity and independence. People's care was reviewed regularly with them to ensure that staff always understood their current needs and the support they needed to offer to people.

There was room to improve people's confidence in the way that they could raise complaints and concerns and that improvements made in response to complaints would be sustained. However, the management team was aware of common threads in the issues people raised through either complaints or questionnaires and the need to ensure they had good communication with people using the service or their relatives.

People using and working in the service were empowered to express their views about the service. The management team reviewed people's suggestions to see what improvements they needed to make and devoted resources to ensuring these happened. They were open with us about areas of difficulty and their plans to ensure that improvements were made.