Background to this inspection
Updated
23 May 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.
This inspection took place on 5 January 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice as it is a domiciliary service and we needed to be sure people would be available. The visit was undertaken by an adult social care inspector and an expert 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. The expert by experience telephoned people using the service, their families and carers on the 7 January 2016.
Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We also reviewed information the provider has sent to us about their service, called a Provider Information Return. We also contacted local commissioners of the service for feedback. They had no concerns about the service.
During the inspection we spoke with three staff including the registered manager, four people who used the service and six relatives of other people who used the service. We also spoke with one external professional and had some written feedback from another who both had contact with the service.
Three care records were reviewed as was the staff training programme. Other records reviewed included, safeguarding adult’s policies and procedures, and accidents and incident reports. We also reviewed five staff recruitment, induction, supervision and training files, and staff meeting records. The registered manager’s action planning process was discussed with them as were their internal quality assurance process.
Updated
23 May 2016
This was an announced inspection. We visited the provider’s offices on the 5 January 2016 and made calls to people using the service and their relatives on the 7 January 2016. The last inspection was in June 2014 and the service was compliant with the regulations in force at the time.
Copper Beech Home Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency registered for the regulated activity of personal care. The service provides care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of inspection there were 20 people using the service.
There was a newly registered manager who had been in post since December 2015. 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 that people’s care was delivered safely and in a way of their choosing. People were supported in a manner that reflected their wishes and supported them to remain as independent as possible.
However not all recruitment records could demonstrate that the provider was following the correct process to recruit staff. The service did not consistently act upon and learn from accidents and incidents.
People’s medicines were managed well. Staff watched for potential side effects and sought medical advice as needed when people’s conditions changed. People and their family carers were supported to manage their own medicines if they wished.
Staff attended the provider’s induction and training and people felt the staff were trained to meet their needs. Staff had the skills to meet people’s needs. We found that formal supervision and appraisal processes were not fully established.
Not all people’s care plans had been signed and consented to. It was unclear if people had agreed to their care. Arrangements were in place to request support from health and social care services to help keep people healthy. External professionals’ advice was sought when needed. Families were consulted and felt involved. However it was not clear if the principles of the mental capacity act were followed when making decisions on how best to support people.
Care was provided by caring and attentive staff who took the time to get to know people and their families and support them in a manner of their choosing. People felt staff treated them with respect and kindness, taking to time to get them to know them as individuals.
People’s needs were assessed prior to the service starting work with them. However care records and plans did not always contain the level of details required to help staff provide people with personalised care. There were inconsistencies in how records were kept and how they were reviewed by the service.
People and their relatives felt able to raise any concerns they had and felt the registered manager would respond positively. We saw that complaints were investigated correctly and actions taken to improve the service.
There was a newly registered manager in place who was open with us about the issues they had identified as needing to improve the service, but the quality assurance processes in the service had not identified some of the issues we found at our visit. There was a lack of critical review and robust learning from issues. The service had not acted upon feedback from a survey of people and relatives.
People and staff felt the registered manager was caring and supportive and they felt able to contact them for support or to raise any issues.