Archived: Leicester Community Care Services DCA

Updated 14 September 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 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.

This inspection took place on 9 August 2016 and was announced. The provider was given two working days' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist us with our inspection.

The inspection was carried out by 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.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. This included any notifications we had received. Notifications tell us about important events which the service is required to tell us by law.

We contacted the commissioners of the service to obtain their views about the care provided. The commissioners had funding responsibility for some of the people using the service. We also contacted Healthwatch Leicestershire who are the local consumer champion for people using adult social care services to see if they had any feedback about the service.

We also spoke with the registered manager as they were going to be on holiday when our inspection visit was due.

During our visit to the provider’s office we were able to speak with the regional operation’s manager, the care coordinator, two team leaders, the administrative officer and two support workers.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included four people’s plans of care and associated documents including risk assessments. We also looked at four staff files including their recruitment and training records and the quality assurance audits that the management team completed.

As part of the inspection process we spoke with 16 people who were using the service and one of their relatives. This was to gather their views of the service being provided. Five support workers were also contacted by telephone following our visit.

Updated 14 September 2016

This inspection took place on 9 August 2016 and was announced. The provider was given two working days’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office. The service provided domiciliary care and support to people living in and around the Leicester and Leicestershire area. At the time of our inspection there were 110 people using the service.

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.

People told us they felt safe with the staff team from Leicester Community Care Services DCA. Both the management team and support workers working for the service had received training on the safeguarding of adults. Everyone we spoke with were aware of their individual responsibilities for keeping people safe from abuse and avoidable harm.

Risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed. This enabled the management team to identify and minimise any risks and enable the support workers to provide people’s care and support in the safest possible way.

Staffing rotas were being monitored to make sure that their were sufficient numbers of support workers to met the needs of the people using the service.

The majority of people we spoke with told us that they received a consistent service from regular support workers. However four people raised some concerns regarding the timeliness of their calls and that they had not always received these from regular support workers. We shared these concerns with the management team for their information and action.

A robust recruitment process had been followed when new members of the staff team had been employed. This made sure as far as possible that only suitable people worked for the service. All new members of staff had been taken through a comprehensive induction and training relevant to their role had been provided. This made sure that the staff team had the skills and knowledge needed to properly support those in their care.

All of the support workers and members of the management team we spoke with felt that there was always someone available to talk with should they need help or advice and were confident that any concerns would be listened to and acted upon. The majority of support workers we spoke with felt supported by the registered manager and the management team.

A comprehensive assessment had been carried out prior to people’s care and support packages commencing. The people using the service and their relatives had been involved in this process and in the development of their plan of care. People’s plans of care were centred on them as a person and included their likes and dislikes and preferences in daily living.

People were always asked for their consent before their care and support was offered. The staff team had been provided with training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and both the management team and the support workers we spoke with understood its principles.

People using the service were supported with their nutritional and health needs. They were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them.

Support workers we spoke with understood their responsibilities for supporting people with their medicines in a safe way. They were aware of what they could and could not do with regards to people’s medicines and only supported people with medicines that were prescribed by their GP.

People using the service told us that the staff team were caring and kind and treated them with dignity and respect.

People using the service and their relatives knew what to do if they were unhappy with the service they received. They knew who to speak with if they had a concern and were confident that any concerns would be dealt with properly. A formal complaints process was in place and this had been followed when a concern had been raised with the management team.

People using the service and their relatives had the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run. They were asked for their opinions of the service on a regular basis. This was through regular telephone calls and visits to people’s homes and through the use of annual surveys. This showed us whenever possible people’s views of the service were sought.

Monitoring systems were in place to monitor the service being provided. Members of the management team were regularly auditing the documentation completed by the support workers and the provider had a quality team in place to monitor the service as a whole. This enabled the provider to monitor the service on an on-going basis.

The registered manager was aware of and understood their legal responsibility for notifying the Care Quality Commission of deaths, incidents and injuries that occurred or affected people using the service.