The Care Workshop Limited

Updated 22 January 2019

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 comprehensive inspection took place over two days on 17 and 18 December 2018. The inspection was announced and the provider was given 48 hours’ notice. This was because the service provides personal care and support to people living in their own home and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to meet with us. The first day was spent with the registered manager at the provider’s office and the second was spent making phone calls to people who use the service and their relatives and contacting staff members for feedback.

The inspection team comprised of one 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.

When planning our inspection, we looked at the information we held about the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR) and the notifications received from the provider about deaths, safeguarding alerts and accidents/incidents which they are required to send us by law. A PIR is information we require providers to send to us annually to give key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they intend to make.

As part of the inspection process we spoke with two people who use the service, three relatives, the registered manager and five care staff. We looked at five people’s care records to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We also looked at medicine records, staff recruitment and training files, policies and procedures and the provider’s quality monitoring systems.

Updated 22 January 2019

This announced inspection took place on the 17 and 18 December 2018. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care and support to people living in their own homes and we wanted to make sure staff would be available to talk to us about the service.

The Care Workshop is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service currently provides care and support to 28 people ranging in age, gender, ethnicity and disability.

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. The registered manager is also the registered provider.

At our last inspection on 23 and 26 September 2016 we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ overall. This was because we found that people were not always protected from risk as their care planning did not take their individual needs and risks into account. We also found that the provider’s audits did not highlight the shortfalls that we did during our inspection. At this inspection we found there had been sufficient improvement to now rate the service as good.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew people well and demonstrated a good understanding of how to manage risks to people. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and people told us they were supported by regular staff. Staff had a good knowledge of abuse and how to protect people from harm. People were supported to take their medication as prescribed. People were protected from the risk of infection.

People were supported by staff who had the skills to meet their needs. Staff spoke positively about the training and induction they received. People’s consent was sought before support was provided and staff understood the importance of this. People’s nutritional needs were met when required and people told us they were happy with the support they received. People had access to healthcare professionals when required.

People told us staff were kind and caring in their approach. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained. Staff respected people’s cultural and religious needs and ensured these were met. People were communicated with in their preferred way.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and reviews of people’s care. People’s care plans included their likes, dislikes and personal history. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident doing so. Where complaints had been raised, they had been dealt with appropriately.

The provider had made improvements in relation to people’s care records being up to date. However, there were still further improvements required. The provider’s quality assurance systems were not always used to drive improvement within the service. People’s and relatives’ feedback was sought and acted on. Staff felt supported and told us they registered manager was approachable.