Cherry Grove

Updated 5 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 checked 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 inspection took place on 6 and 10 December 2018, it was announced and was undertaken by one inspector. This was the first inspection of this service.

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

We visited the office location on both dates to see the registered manager directors and office staff and review care records, policies and procedures.

Prior to our inspection we looked at and reviewed all the intelligence the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had received. This helped inform us and assisted us to make a judgement about this service.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). 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 looked at the notifications we had received and reviewed all the intelligence the Care Quality Commission (CQC) held to help inform us about the level of risk present and make a judgement about this service.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the two directors, care coordinator and three staff. We visited two people in their own homes with their permission accompanied by the registered manager. We inspected the care records of three people using the service. This included records of assessments undertaken before these people received a service, their care plans, risk assessments, medication administration records and the daily entries made by staff following their visits.

We looked at records relating to the management of the service. This included quality assurance documentation, checks and audits, policies and procedures and the complaints information. We inspected the minutes of staff meetings, staff rotas, three staff files, staff training and supervision records and information about staff recruitment. We also asked the local authority and Healthwatch (a healthcare champion) for their views about this service prior to our inspection.

Updated 5 January 2019

We undertook this inspection on 6 and 10 December 2018. It was announced.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to younger and older adults, people with sensory impairment or disabilities and those living with old age frailty and dementia.

Not everyone using Peggy’s World CiC receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

This was the first inspection of this service.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 ethos of the service was to provide bespoke care and support to people and their relations to enable all parties to feel supported and to live their lives.

People were safeguarded from harm and abuse; any issues were reported to the relevant authorities to make sure people’s rights were protected. Care and treatment was planned and delivered to maintain people’s health and safety. Staffing levels were monitored to ensure there were enough staff provided to meet people’s needs. Recruitment, medicine management and infection control were robust.

Staff undertook training in a variety of subjects and were provided with supervision to maintain and develop their skills. People’s dietary needs were monitored and reviewed, if staff were concerned advice and guidance was sought from health care professionals to maintain people’s dietary needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were cared for by kind, attentive staff and their privacy and dignity was maintained. Information was provided to people in a format that met their needs. People’s diversity was respected and promoted. Confidential information was stored in line with data protection legislation.

People’s care and support was monitored and reviewed. Health care professionals were contacted for help and advice and staff acted upon what they said to maintain people’s wellbeing. A complaints policy and procedure was in place. This was provided to people who used the service. People we spoke with told us they had no complaints to raise. End of life care could be provided by the service, but this had not occurred yet.

Staff understood if people lacked capacity to make their own decisions then the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and codes of practice must be followed. Care was provided to people in their best interests following discussion with their relations and relevant health care professionals. This helped to protect people’s rights.

Quality monitoring checks and audits were undertaken. Issues found were acted upon to make sure the service provided for people was effective. People using the service, their relatives and staff were asked for their views about the service, feedback was acted upon.

Quality monitoring checks and audits were undertaken. Spot checks were carried out to determine the quality of service delivered to people. Formal surveys and informal phone calls from the management team were used to gain people’s feedback. People using the service, their relatives and staff could contact the registered manager ‘on call’ for help and advice. The management team undertook care calls which helped them review the care provided to people.