Archived: Focus Care Services - Huddersfield

Focus Care Services is a registered domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. The office base of the agency is situated close to the town centre of Huddersfield. At the time of our inspection there were five people who used the service for the regulated activity of personal care.

There was a registered manager in post. 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's safety was considered and there were detailed risk assessments in people's care records for staff to understand how to support people safely.

Safeguarding procedures were known by staff and staff were confident to use whistleblowing procedures to report any poor practice. The safeguarding information available to staff contained internal details of how to report concerns, although contact information for safeguarding authorities was not immediately available.

Staff completed regular training and there was regular monitoring of staff competencies; staff were encouraged to reflect upon their practice and consider areas for development.

People's mental capacity was considered and their rights and choices were respected.

Staff had a caring attitude and approach to their work, they valued one another and they had a positive attitude towards ensuring people's privacy and dignity was respected.

Care plans were person centred, with regular reviews of people's care and evidence of people's involvement.

Complaints and compliments were appropriately managed with positive comments fed back to staff.

The registered manager promoted a culture of transparency and openness and aimed to ensure a quality service was delivered to people.

The manager explained that all of the people using the service lived in their own homes and staff from the agency provided 24 hour care and support. The agency did not provide people's accommodation; rent was paid to landlords that were not associated with the service.

The manager told us the agency had 'An abundance of staff'. They said they had 56 staff on their books; many of which had jobs elsewhere and worked for the agency either part time or on an 'as and when' basis. The manager told us the agency also had many full time staff that had been supporting the same people for several years.

Following our visit we spoke with one support worker and one relative.

The support worked told us they felt communication could be improved between the office staff and the care staff. They said 'If people's care needs change we should be kept in the picture'. They also said 'If we have a problem we can ring the office; they usually help sort things out'.

The relative told us 'My brother seems quite happy; that's the main thing. We have had issues in the past, mainly about cleanliness, but they seem to have sorted that out now. I was there last night and it all looked clean'.

The support worker and the relative told us the communication from the office about the staffing rotas could be improved. The support worker told us 'The rotas are sent out in the post; sometimes the people get the rotas before we do'. The relative confirmed this and told us 'Sometimes they are a bit slack about sending out the rotas then we don't know which staff are coming'. They said 'They do seem a bit disorganised sometimes'.

Before people received care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People told us they were involved in their care and felt that staff respected their opinions and decisions.

Each person had a care file which identified their needs as well as their preferences and any risks associated with their care. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us, 'They look after me well.'

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff told us they had attended training on this topic and had access to protective clothing such as aprons and gloves.

Checks had been carried out on staff before they started to work at the agency to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. This included ensuring they underwent a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.

Most people we spoke with said they had not raised any complaints, but they said they would talk to staff if anything was concerning them. One person told us when they had raised minor concerns these had been addressed quickly and to their satisfaction.