Royal Care Health Recruitment & Training

Updated 5 September 2018

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.

The inspection included a visit to the agency’s office which took place on 10 August 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on in the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service, including notifications submitted to us by the provider, and information gained from people using the service and their relatives who had contacted CQC to share feedback about the service. We spoke with two people using the service by telephone to find out about their experience of receiving care from the provider. We spoke with the registered manager and a director of the company during the inspection, and prior to the inspection we carried out surveys of people using the service, staff and community healthcare professionals. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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.

During the inspection site visit we looked at documentation including five people’s care records, risk assessments, five personnel and training files, complaints records, the staff duty roster, meeting minutes and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 5 September 2018

The inspection took place on 10 August 2018, and was announced; we gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure that the registered manager was available for us to speak with.

The service was last inspected in April 2016, and was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service continued to be good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults in the Rotherham and Sheffield areas. At the time of the inspection they were providing support to around 50 people.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People’s care files showed that their care needs had been thoroughly assessed, and they received care in accordance with their assessed needs. People’s care was regularly reviewed to ensure it met their needs, and care was tailored towards each person’s individual preferences and care needs.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Risk assessments were up to date and detailed. Medicines were managed safely, so that people received their medication as prescribed.

We found recruitment processes were thorough, which helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

Staff had completed an induction before commencing work and there was a comprehensive training programme in place. This helped them meet the needs of the people they supported.

Records showed that on occasion relatives had been required to make decisions on other people’s behalf, which does not reflect lawful decision making.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed, and this was explained to people when they first started using the service.

The registered manager had a clear oversight of the service, and of the people who had used or were using it. Additionally they operated a formal audit system to identify where improvements were required.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal, and the standard and quality of care visits was regularly monitored.