We carried out a review of the data available to us about I Care (GB) Limited - Blackburn on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about I Care (GB) Limited - Blackburn, you can give feedback on this service.
The service had 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
This service provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, a total of 123 people were using the service. This was provided where people were living independently in the community (49 people) or in an 'extra care' setting (74 people). Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant's own home. People's care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care living; this inspection looked at people's personal care and support service.
We undertook a comprehensive inspection of iCare GB on the 9, 10,11 and 15 January 2018. The overall rating for this inspection was ‘Requires Improvement’, with well led rated as ‘Inadequate’. We found three breaches of the Regulations in relation to personal centred care, staff support and
supervision and good governance. We also made recommendations about medicines' administration practices and how information is shared with other service when people are transferred to hospital.
Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question’s, is the service safe, is the service effective and is the service well led? During this inspection we found the necessary improvements had been made and the overall rating has therefore improved to Good.
We saw safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures were in place within the service and the appropriate notifications had been submitted if safeguarding concerns had been raised.
Risk assessments were in place to keep people safe. We saw individual risk assessments were in place in relation to people’s health care needs. We also saw risks in people’s own environment had been considered.
Staff recruitment procedures protected people who used the service. The service had a recruitment policy in place to guide the registered manager on safe recruitment processes. The service managed staffing levels and the deployment of staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs.
Medicines were managed safely. The service had improved since our last inspection. Staff had received training in administering medicines and their competencies were checked regularly. We found medicines were stored safely, the medicine administration records were completed without any gaps and controlled drugs were safely stored.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
All new staff members were expected to complete an induction when they commenced employment. Training courses were available to staff which were relevant to their roles. Staff members told us and records confirmed that staff members received supervisions and appraisals on a regular basis. This was an improvement from our last inspection. All staff members told us they were able to discuss any training requirements they had.
Support plans that were in place were person centred and evidenced the person had been involved in the development and review of these. These were detailed and contained information about people’s likes and dislikes.
The service ensured that people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and that they were given emotional support when needed.
People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. Privacy and dignity policies and procedures were in place that staff were expected to read and ensure they understood.
Staff were aware of the importance of maintaining and building people’s independence as part of their role and were able to describe to us how they did this.
Staff who were supporting people in the ‘extra care’ schemes encouraged them to join in activities. Whilst this was not part of their role, the registered manager told us staff wanted to go the ‘extra mile’ for people they were supporting.
At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the provider’s quality assurance systems. We found these were robust and had been effective at identifying any issues or concerns.
People who used the service, staff and others were consulted on their experiences and shaping future developments. We saw that surveys were sent out to people as a means of gaining feedback about the service.
This service provides care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection, a total of 166 people were using the service. This was provided to people in a traditional home where people were living alone or with a relative (62 people) or in an 'extra care' setting (104 people). Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.
The service had 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
At this inspection we found breaches of regulations around personal centred care, staff support and supervision and good governance. We have also made recommendations about medicines' administration practices and how information is shared with other service when people are transferred to hospital. You can see the action we have asked the provider to take in respect of the breaches of regulations at the back of the report.
The service did not always provide care that was the least restrictive. Where people lacked capacity and had restrictions applied, the appropriate authorisations for these were not always in place.
18 out of 20 members of staff we spoke with told us there was a negative culture within the service and limited support from the registered manager and staff from the main office. Staff did however tell us that they enjoyed their work and wanted to do their best to enhance the experience of people who used the service. We received positive feedback from a visiting professional and relatives of people who used the service.
Although the registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of the service, some of it required improvement as they had failed to pick up on the issues found at this inspection and management oversight of the service required improvement. We found people were satisfied with the service they were receiving.
Assessments were undertaken to identify people’s support needs before they started using the service. However, some assessments in to mental capacity were not taking place and did not reflect people's requirements. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People were aware of the complaints' procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be listened to, investigated and action taken if necessary.
We found the service had appropriate safeguarding adults procedures in place and that staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. People using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them with kindness and understanding. Staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported from abuse. There was a whistle-blowing (reporting poor practice) procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to.
People had access to health care professionals when they needed them and were supported, where required, to take their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals. Staff had completed training specific to meet the needs of people using the service, and they received regular supervision. People’s care files included assessments relating to their dietary requirements and other essential support needs.
I Care GB Limited is a privately owned domiciliary care agency situated on the outskirts of Blackburn. The agency provides personal care to people in their own homes who require support in order to remain independent. The premises are accessible to the disabled and there is a large car park for visitors to the service. The agency has recently taken over a supported living service from another provider.
We last inspected this service in August 2013 when the service met all the regulations we inspected. This announced inspection took place on the 06 October 2015. We gave the service two days’ notice in line with our guidance.
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.
Staff were aware of and had been trained in safeguarding procedures to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service. All the people who used the service said they felt safe. Family members told us they thought their relatives were safe. Risk assessments protected people in the home and community.
Staff were recruited using current guidelines to help minimise the risk of abuse to people who used the service.
Staff were trained in medicines administration and supported people to take their medicines if it was a part of their care package.
Staff were trained in infection control and provided with personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection.
Staff received the training they needed and regular supervision to check they were performing well. Staff were encouraged to come into the office to talk to management if they wished. New staff had to complete an induction before they worked with vulnerable people. Spot checks were randomly conducted to check on staff performance and people’s satisfaction with the service.
Although people who used the service lived in their own houses and choose what they ate staff were trained in nutrition and safe food handling to give advice to people about their meals.
The agency asked for people’s views around how the service was performing and we saw evidence that the registered manager responded to their views.
There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. The people we spoke with said they did not have any concerns but knew how to contact the office if they did.
We observed a good rapport between people who used the service and staff. We saw that staff appeared to know people well and understand their needs.
People were taken out as part of their package to places they wanted. We saw that this was suitable for the age, ethnicity and sex of the people who used the service.
We saw that where a service user had any cultural needs or spoke little English staff from a suitable background were matched up with them to ensure their needs were met.
Two people who used the service told us, "Except for the odd time such as for holidays I get the same staff who I know very well now. They are very reliable. They come on time and for the allocated sessions but obviously there are times when they are a little late. This is usually because the person they visited before me has taken up more of their time than they should. It is not often" and "I get the same staff most of the time. They are very reliable". Results from the agencies quality assurance survey told us that reliability was very good (86%) and (97%) of staff completed all their tasks in the allocated time of each visit.
Plans of care were developed and reviewed with people who used the service to ensure their wishes were taken into account.
Each person had a copy of the complaints procedure within their care plan. People we spoke with knew how to complain if they wanted to.
People told us they were cared for as they wished and commented, "I am very happy with the agency and the care they give me", "I am very happy with the agency. I can tell them if I am not happy with the service and have done so in the past. I did not click with one carer and they changed her" and "I am happy with the service and the people who come in to help me".
People said they normally got the same staff and they were reliable. This helped ensure people who used the service received the care they wished for.
People said they felt safe using the agency. The staff supplied were appreciated and they made sure properties were secure when they left.
One staff member said she was supported, well trained and the agency conducted "spot checks" to keep a check on her standards and to gain people who used the services views.