Archived: ICare Solutions Manchester Limited

Updated 26 April 2017

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 inspection took place on 12, 16 and 20 December 2016 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and one 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.

The inspection included visits to the home care agency’s premises, to people in their own homes and the expert by experience made telephone calls to six people who used the service and four relatives to find out their views on the care and service they received.

Before the inspection we asked the provider to complete 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 in the PIR, along with other information that we held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

As part of the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included contacting the care commissioners in Manchester and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager, a care coordinator, a director of the company and seven care workers. At the time of our visit the service was providing personal care and support to 75 people.

We spent the first day of the inspection at the service’s registered address speaking with staff and looking at records. These included five people’s care records, five staff recruitment files, staff training records, supervision records, various policies and procedures and other documents relating to the management of the service.

On the second day of inspection we visited four people who used the service in their own homes and spoke with one relatives. We looked at paperwork relating to their care after obtaining the individual’s permission.

Updated 26 April 2017

We inspected ICare Solutions Manchester on 12, 16 and 20 December 2016. The first day of inspection was unannounced. The second day was spent visiting people in their homes who received a service and the third was spent back in the office providing feedback to management.

ICare Solutions is a domiciliary care service providing personal care and support to people living in their own homes. The service also works closely with healthcare commissioning teams in supporting people who have a range of healthcare needs. The hours of support vary depending on the assessed needs of people.

At the time of the inspection the service was supporting 75 people within the local community of Manchester and Stockport. We last inspected the service on 1 May 2014 when we found the provider was non-compliant in Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

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.

People told us they received safe care, which was reliable and consistent. The service had sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, and people were given the time they needed to ensure their care needs were met.

We saw that people were protected from avoidable harm. During the inspection we checked to see how the service protected vulnerable people against abuse and if staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse. There was an up to date safeguarding vulnerable adult’s policy in place. Risks to people were assessed and risk management plans were in place. We found that the staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the principles of safeguarding.

Risks posed to people were identified during the assessment process. Care plans we looked at contained information in relation to risks that had been identified for individuals, for example when mobilising or having medicines. Environmental risks had also been identified and documented for staff.

Staff were trained to administer medicines. The registered manager was in the process of implementing a more thorough Medication Administration Record (MAR) chart for more accurate recording of medicines. The management team acknowledged that the medicines management system could be more robust and agreed to re-visit their policy, ensure this was aligned to best practice and implement any changes they needed to make the system safer.

The service was not working to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 and staff did not receive any formal training on MCA. The service was not assessing and documenting, where necessary, people’s ability to consent to care.

The service had robust recruitment processes which included the completion of pre-employment checks prior to a new member of staff working at the service. This helped to ensure that staff members employed to support people were suitable and fit to do so. People who used the service could be confident that they were protected from staff that were known to be unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff knew their roles and responsibilities and were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and reporting procedures.

We saw evidence of the induction process and there was on going training provided for caring roles and responsibilities.

People were supported with a range of services which enabled them to continue to live in their own homes safely. People we spoke with who used the service and their relatives told us they had been involved in the assessment and planning of the care and support provided and that the service responded to changes in people’s needs.

The care records contained information about the support people required. We saw documented evidence of people’s likes, dislikes and preferences and records we saw were complete and up to date.

We found from looking at people’s care records that the service liaised with health and social care professionals involved in people’s care if their health or support needs changed. The service worked alongside other professionals and agencies in order to meet people’s care requirements.

Likes, dislikes and personal preferences of people using the service were documented in care plans. People had been consulted and the service recognised the importance of documenting this information so that care and support provided was personalised, safe and correct for the individual.

There was an up to date accident/ incident policy and procedure in place. Records of accidents and incidents were recorded by care workers within communication books, however these were not always actioned at the office. The recording of accidents and incidents needed formalising.

The service had a complaints policy in place and we could see that people using the service were aware of how to make a complaint. Formal complaints were acknowledged and addressed within specified timescales.

Staff told us they felt they were able to put their views across to senior staff and to management and we saw examples of this from minutes of meetings and supervision records. The staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working at the service and said they felt fully supported and listened to.

The service did not undertake spot checks on staff to observe behaviour and practice and the formal audits in place to monitor the quality of service delivery were not limited and ineffective. Feedback from people using the service and their relatives was gained via various sources. The service could evidence that it had acted on feedback to improve the care experience for people.

The overall rating for this service is ‘requires improvement’. During this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.