Archived: Comfort Call Hartlepool

The inspection took place on 30 June 2015, 2 July 2015 and 3 July 2015. This was an announced inspection. This was the service’s first inspection since Comfort Call Hartlepool registered with the Care Quality Commission.

Comfort Call Hartlepool is a domiciliary care service, which provides support with shopping, domestic tasks and personal care to people living in four extra care schemes in Hartlepool. At the time of this inspection 101 people were using the service.

The service had a 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.

We found the provider had breached Regulations 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the registered provider did not have accurate records to support and evidence the safe administration of medicines. We found gaps and inaccuracies in medicines records. The registered provider did not have systems in place to identify issues with medicines records in a timely manner. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe. They went on to tell us they received good care from well trained and skilled staff. One person said, “Yes, I feel very safe. Another person commented, “Yes I feel safe. I have no worries about them [staff]. They are very helpful.” People also told us, “[Staff] know their job really well”, “I love it here, wish I’d moved in years ago”, and, “I think it’s marvellous.” People told us staff were usually reliable and responded quickly. One person said, “They are always there if I need to buzz them. They come as quickly as they can.” People said staff always asked for consent before providing care. One person told us the first thing staff did when they attended to them was to ask, “Do you need help?” Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People received support from kind and caring staff who knew them well. They went on to say they were in control of their care and support. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. One person said the staff were, “Very nice, all of them both day and night staff.” Another person said they had, “Plenty of free scope”, and there were, “No restrictions.” Another person told us, “The staff know I like bubbles [in the bath].”

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and the registered provider’s whistle blowing procedure. One staff member said they had, “Never felt the need to use it [whistle blowing procedure].” Staff said any concerns they had would be taken seriously. Staff were well supported in their role and recruitment checks were carried out before they started caring for people.

The registered provider assessed potential risks. However, we found risk assessment records had not always been completed fully. We also found some of controls to manage risks had not been documented fully and lacked detail. We were unable to confirm with certainty that all incidents and accidents had been logged and investigated as records had been left blank.

People had their nutritional needs assessed, including identifying their eating and drinking preferences. Staff supported people to ensure they had enough to eat and drink. Where people were identified as at risk of poor nutrition action had been taken to keep them safe. People were supported to attend health related appointments.

Staff had access to information to help them better understand the needs of the people. This included a brief life history, information about their preferences and how they wanted to be supported. People needs had been assessed and the assessment used to develop person centred care plans. Care plans identified goals for people to aim towards. However these were not always specific to the individual needs of the person. Care plans were reviewed at least annually and whenever a person’s needs changed.

Most people said they had the opportunity to take part in activities if they chose to. They told us they enjoyed carpet bowls, quiz nights, bingo and social evenings.

People knew how to complain if they were unhappy. People we spoke with did not raise any concerns with us about their care. People had the opportunity to feedback their views about the support they received through an annual survey. Feedback from the most recent survey was positive.

Staff told us there was a positive culture within the service. They said they worked well together as a team. One staff member said good teamwork was, “Crucial to the service being good.” Another staff member said they were like, “One big happy family.” Regular team meetings were held to allow staff to give their views about the service.

The registered provider had systems in place to assess the quality of the care people received. This included unannounced spot checks on care practice and an external audit of the service. There were checks of the environment, health and safety, confidentiality, compliance with training, staffing and complaints. We saw examples of improvements made following checks and audits. Incidents and accidents were not regularly analysed to help keep people safe.