23 July 2014
During a routine inspection
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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This inspection was unannounced. During the inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service and relatives of four other people who used the service. We spoke to the registered manager and four care staff.
Absolute Care Agency is a home care service that provides personal care for people in their own homes. There were 80 people who received personal care at the time of our inspection. The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
All of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe when they were being cared for, but one person said they didn’t always feel safe when care workers used a hoist to lift them. People knew how to raise any concerns. Staff had received training in safeguarding of vulnerable people. Staff we spoke with knew how to identity and report signs of abuse.
The service employed enough care workers to be able to ensure all scheduled home visits were made. The service had effective recruitment procedures that ensured as far as possible that only suitable people were recruited to work as care workers.
The service involved people in decisions about which care workers supported them. The service had matched people with care workers. For example, care workers who spoke a person’s first language and understood their cultural needs were people’s assigned care workers.
Staff told us the training they had received had helped them be able to meet the needs of people who used the service. Nearly all people we spoke with, including relatives, felt that staff had the necessary skills.
People’s health had been monitored. When necessary, the service had referred people to the appropriate health and social care professionals.
People told us that care workers were kind and caring. People felt that they had been listened to and treated with dignity and respect. People who used the service and their relatives had been involved in discussions and decisions about their care and support.
The service had policies about respecting people’s privacy, dignity and human rights. Staff had easy access to those polices.
The service arranged in the region of 1,200 home visits per week. People mostly received visits at times they expected. People who used the service told us that care workers understood their needs and had provided the care and support they expected. Where necessary, people’s care plans had been changed when people’s needs had changed.
People who used the service and their relatives had been encouraged to provide feedback about their experience of the service. That had happened at reviews of care plans and through a satisfaction survey. People had been able to contact the office at any time to leave feedback. The service had a complaints procedure that was used as an opportunity for learning and improvement. Only five complaints had been made in the last 12 months and all had been responded to appropriately.
The service had a clear vision about what it wanted to achieve. That vision was understood by the staff we spoke with. Staff were supported to raise concerns they had about the service through a whistle blowing procedure. The registered manager was office based but also spent time on home visits to check on the quality of care provided.
Staff we spoke with were motivated and enthusiastic. They knew how to raise any concerns and were aware of the service’s policies. They were aware of and had used the service’s procedures for reporting and investigating incidents and accidents.
The registered manager operated an effective system for assessing and monitoring the quality of care and support that people received. Information from that system had been used to drive improvements in the quality of care and support provided.