G.R Response Healthcare

Updated 25 December 2018

The inspection:

• We carried out our inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. Our inspection checked whether the provider was 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.

Inspection team:

• Our inspection was completed by two adult social care inspectors, 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. Our expert-by-experience had knowledge about personal care of adults within the community.

Service and service type:

• The service is required to have 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. At the time of our inspection, a manager was registered with us.

• Our inspection process commenced on 26 September 2018 and concluded on 24 November 2018. It included visiting the service’s office and telephoning people who used the service and their relatives. We visited the office location on 24 November 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff, and to review care records and policies and procedures. We telephoned people and relatives on 26 September 2018.

Notice of inspection:

• Our inspection was announced.

• We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the registered manager was often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

What we did:

• Our inspection was informed by evidence we already held about the service. We also checked for feedback we received from members of the public, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). We checked records held by Companies House and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

• We did not ask the service to complete a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

• We telephoned and spoke with one person and six relatives to gather their feedback.

• We spoke with the registered manager, the quality and assurance manager, recruitment and training manager, a care manager and a care worker.

• We reviewed five people’s care records, two personnel files, two medicines administration records and other records about the management of the service.

• After our inspection, we asked the registered manager to send us further documents to our national customer service centre, so that alterations to the registration records could be made.

Updated 25 December 2018

What life was like for people using this service:

• The service made numerous improvements since our last inspection.

• The safety of people’s support and the quality monitoring of care processes were improved.

• People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. They could express their views about the service and provide feedback.

• Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to perform their roles effectively.

• People’s care was personalised to their individual needs. There was sufficient detail in people’s care documentation that enabled staff to provide responsive care.

• There was a complaints system in place, however further improvements are needed to ensure it is always robust.

• The service had processes in place to measure, document, improve and evaluate the quality of care. More time is required to ensure that the processes are effective and sustainable.

• Changes were implemented to the management team to encourage a continuous improvement process at the service.

• The service met the characteristics for a rating of “good” in all key questions.

• More information about our inspection findings is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

• The rating of this service at our last inspection was “requires improvement”.

• At our last inspection, there were four breaches of the regulations.

About the service:

• G.R Response Healthcare is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger and older adults, people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, learning disabilities or dementia.

• The service’s office is based in Langley, and personal care is provided to people in surrounding areas.

• At the time of our inspection, 30 people used the service and there were 30 staff.

Why we inspected:

• All services rated “requires improvement” are re-inspected within one year of our prior inspection.

• This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.

Follow up:

• We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.