The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Beeches Homecare - Cirencester

30a Dyer Street, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 2PF (01285) 657327

Provided and run by:
Mrs Theresa Clark

All Inspections

22 July 2014

During a routine inspection

The agency employed twenty two staff and provided personal care to fifty two people at the time of our inspection. We visited the locally registered office. We met with the registered provider, the registered manager the administration staff in the office and three care support workers. We reviewed the written documentation held at the office. We later spoke by telephone to four people who used the service and one family member.

An adult social care inspector carried out the inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that staff had received training about safeguarding vulnerable people. They told us they would act immediately if they suspected abuse. Staff told us they had read the policies and procedures, and there was guidance available for staff for the local arrangements in place with the local authority.

We spoke with people who used the service who told us they felt comfortable with the care staff who supported them. One person told us, "Yes, I feel very safe, they [staff] are wonderful".

There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medications where people required support. Staff had received appropriate training. The registered manager and senior staff regularly visited people in their homes. They checked that people were satisfied with the care and support they received. This was known as 'spot checking'.

Is the service effective?

We were shown the policies and procedures in place. These provided guidance and direction to staff. We saw that staff received an induction into their role. They were supervised on a regular basis and received annual appraisals.

We spoke with people who used the service and their families. We saw that people had been involved in the planning of their care. People told us that the registered manager contacted or visited them on a regular basis. This gave people the opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns.

Is the service caring?

People spoke very positively about the care and support received. One person told us, "I can't fault them [the staff] in any way, they do what I need and more". People told us that the manager was very approachable and they could contact them at any time to discuss any issues or concerns.

We spoke with staff who were clear in their understanding that they should treat people with respect. They gave us examples of how they consulted with people, and how they ensured privacy was maintained when they were supporting people with personal care.

Is the service responsive?

We saw evidence of involvement of other health care professionals where needed. We spoke with staff who told us they received support and guidance for other health professionals such as occupational therapists or district nurses. This meant that people could be confident that changes in their condition would be promptly addressed because there was effective communication between different health care agencies.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in post. We saw that staff were trained and that they were effectively supported.

We saw that people were given opportunities to feedback on the quality of the service, and that actions were taken in response to the feedback received.

We were shown the monitoring systems in place to maintain an effective overview of the quality of the service provided.

17 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spent the day in the agency's office, with the manager, who assisted us with providing information. We looked at three people's care files and various records, and were shown how the service monitored the care people received.

We spoke with a senior member of staff, and a member of the care staff, who was supporting the manager with paperwork. We spoke with three people who used the agency and one relative by telephone after our visit to the agency.

Comments made by people included 'staff are respectful' and 'always caring' and 'they (carers) do an excellent job'.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs. All the people we spoke with told us they were well supported, that staff arrived on time, and that they had no complaints.

People we spoke with told us that they felt safe when being supported by care staff. Staff we spoke with demonstrated how to recognise abuse and how to report any concerns.

There were processes in place to monitor the care people received. Some of these had not been carried out on a regular basis and some of the managerial tasks had not always been completed in a timely way. An office administrator was in the process of being recruited and it was evident that the manager had found it difficult carrying out the management of the office coupled with the daily running of the agency.

15 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We visited this agency in July 2012 and found concerns in a number of areas. The agency was under staffed and the manager was regularly having to undertake home visits to cover staff absences. This meant that the office was often left unattended and managerial duties, including quality assurance processes were neglected. Pre employment checks were not consistently undertaken and staff did not always receive adequate induction training.

We carried out a follow up visit to check that the agency had taken action in response to our concerns. We checked whether people were receiving safe and appropriate care. We visited the branch office, spoke with the manager and the administrator and looked at records. We spoke on the telephone with three people who used the service.

Feedback was positive. People told us that care workers usually arrived when they were expected and they were informed of any delays or staff changes. Care workers were described as "friendly", "caring" and "wonderful". This positive feedback was also reflected in monthly telephone feedback captured by the agency.

The agency was still short staffed but was actively recruiting. An administrator had recently been employed and quality assurance systems were more effective. People could be assured that they would be cared for by suitable individuals. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began working for the agency and they were given comprehensive induction training when they started work.

23 July 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We previously visited this agency in March 2012. At that time we had concerns about failure to follow safeguarding procedures, a lack of up to date and specialist training, and inadequate quality assurance processes. The provider submitted an action plan which detailed the actions they had taken to achieve compliance in these areas. We made a return visit to check their progress with this.

We did not speak with people who use services as part of this review. We spoke with the registered manager on the day of our visit and we spoke with three staff over the telephone following our visit.

The registered manager assured us that safeguarding responsibilities were documented and understood. We saw evidence that an allegation of abuse had been appropriately managed, although we were concerned that out of date information was still being used. We were also concerned to find that the member of staff who was the subject of this allegation had not understood their responsibilities with regard to the handling of client's money and was not being adequately supervised. We found that pre employment checks had not been properly completed. This led us to look at recruitment records for other staff and we found further deficiencies.

We found that the agency was short staffed and the manager was regularly covering for absent staff. This meant that she was neglecting her managerial duties and at times leaving the office unattended. We felt that contingency arrangements for staff absence were inadequate.

We looked at training records and saw that some improvements had been made. Most staff were up to date with mandatory training. Some staff had received training in supporting people with dementia but this had not been offered to all staff. However we were concerned that some new staff did not receive formal training in essential subjects before they commenced work or within their defined induction period of three months.

We spoke with the manager about systems to monitor the quality of service. The provider had told us that they had employed a qualified person to implement quality assurance systems. This person was in fact employed as a care worker and the quality assurance role had yet to be defined or developed. There were some systems in place to monitor quality but they were not sufficiently systematic or well developed to provide assurance of quality and safety.

1 March 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service. They said that the carers were very good and they were respectful and polite. One person said "they do look after me."

People told us that they had opportunities to give their views about the service that was provided. There were different ways for them to comment on the quality of the service. They said that they had had assessments of their needs and care plans that were updated as their needs changed. They told us that the carers always gave them the support that they needed.

These people told us that the carers were dependable and trustworthy and that they felt safe in their care. They said that the staff understood their needs and that they seemed to have the right training to meet their needs.