Background to this inspection
Updated
17 December 2014
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.
The inspection team consisted of a lead 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. We visited the service’s offices on 19 and 20 August 2014.
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. In preparation for the inspection we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with information we held about the service. We contacted Doncaster Healthwatch and they had no concerns to share with us. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.
We obtained information from Doncaster Council who commission services from the provider. They told us they had visited recently and had identified some areas that needed improvement. They shared the action plan that had been put in place for the provider to improve in these areas.
This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’
The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.
We last carried out an inspection in February 2014 because we received information of concern that people who used the service were at risk because there were insufficient numbers of staff working to support people. At that time we found there was enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
During the inspection of 19 and 20 August 2014, we spoke with 19 people who used the service and four of their relatives about what it was like to receive care and support from the service. We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We reviewed six people’s care files and three people’s day to day care records. We spoke with six support staff to find out what it was like to work for the service. We also looked at their recruitment, supervision and training records. We spoke with the registered manager, the quality assurance manager, the regional manager and three team managers.
Updated
17 December 2014
Care UK Learning Disabilities Services Doncaster provides support to approximately 150 older people and younger adults with a learning disability in their own homes in the Doncaster area.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.
We visited the service on the 19 and 20 August 2014. The inspection was unannounced and the inspection visit was carried out over two days.
The registered manager explained that Care UK had taken over the running of the service from the previous service provider just over a year ago and staff who worked in the service had transferred to Care UK. A number of staff were not satisfied with the new arrangements regarding their pay, terms and conditions and had been taking strike action. This had affected around 12 weeks during the 12 months since Care UK had taken over.
We found that most support staff were aware of people’s needs because they had access to people’s care plans in their homes and because they usually worked with the same people. However, the strike action meant that people did not always receive care from workers who were familiar with their needs. Therefore, it was important that people’s care plans were up to date. However, we found there were gaps in some people’s care plans. This required improvement to make sure each person who used the service was protected against the risks of receiving care or treatment that is inappropriate or unsafe.
People who used the service told us they felt safe. They knew who to contact at the service if they had any concerns about their safety or wished to raise a concern. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and the staff we spoke with knew how to recognise abuse. They also knew what action to take if they suspected a person who used the service was at risk of harm.
People were satisfied with the quality of care they received and told us the care they received met their needs. They were supported to have access to healthcare professionals, such as GPs, dentists and chiropodists to maintain their health. People were supported to have good nutrition and told us they were supported to prepared their meals in the way they preferred.
People felt their support staff were caring. Support staff told us they were supported by the management team to care for people effectively. We saw confirmation that support staff received the training they needed, although some staffs’ supervision had fallen behind, due to pressure on the managers to make sure people received the service during periods of strike action.
Support staff had been recruited using a thorough recruitment process and appropriate checks were carried out before they were allowed to work with people who used the service. This helped to minimise the risk of people being cared for by staff who were unsuitable for the role.
People were involved in their care planning. Care plans had information on how people wanted to be supported and detailed how their care should be delivered. People told us the service provided care and support that met their individual needs. People with particular health needs were cared for by staff who had received training specifically to meet their particular health needs.
People told us their support staff were caring and helped them to be as independent as they could. People were supported to express their views, which were taken into account in developing the service.
We found the service was well managed. This was also the view of support staff who told us they were supported by the management team to carry out their role effectively.