Archived: York Helpers

Updated 22 May 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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. We also followed up previously identified non-compliance which had resulted in enforcement action being taken against the provider.

This inspection took place at the agency on the 8 April 2015 and was unannounced. We also spoke with twenty people who used the service and seven relatives over a two week period and we spoke with five staff to seek their views.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors (one of whom carried out telephone interviews), a pharmacist 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.

Prior to our visit we spoke with Commissioners from City of York Council and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

We spent one day at the main office of York Helpers, speaking with the manager and also the operations support manager and director.

We looked at a range of records which included four care records, medication records, four recruitment files, a selection of meeting minutes, the staff training matrix and the complaints, safeguarding and incidents log. We also looked at records used to monitor the quality of the service.

Updated 22 May 2015

The inspection of York Helpers took place on the 8 April 2015. This was an unannounced inspection that incorporated a check on previously identified breaches in regulations.

During the inspection carried out in July and August 2014 we found that the provider had failed to comply with the relevant requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. We issued three compliance actions for the following; safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, medication management and staffing. This inspection was to follow up to see if these breaches had now been met. We found that significant improvements had been made and that the service was now compliant with the regulations.

York Helpers is owned and managed by Springfield Homecare Services Ltd. The service provides domestic help like shopping and cleaning and personal care like washing and dressing to people who live in their own homes. There were approximately one hundred people being supported when we carried out our visit.

The service has a manager who was in the process of becoming registered. 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 were now safe as systems and practices had been reviewed. Risks were appropriately managed. All staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and those spoken with were clear of the action to take if they identified poor practice.

We found that staffing numbers had improved since our last visit and missed calls had reduced significantly. The majority of people we spoke with said that improvements had been made although some people still raised concern about the lateness of some calls. This is under continual review from the manager.

Staff recruitment practices were robust which helped to protect people. Medicines management had improved and people now received their medication safely and as prescribed by their GP.

People were assessed before they started to use the service to check that the service was able to meet their needs. The records in place were detailed and person centred.

A range of training was provided to all staff and we could see a structured plan in place to address any shortfalls. Staff were positive about the training provided.

People were supported to make choices and decisions with all aspects of their daily lives. Some people required support with their meals or in attending health appointments. Where possible the service was structured to meet their needs.

People were positive about the care and support they received from their regular carers. We received lots of positive comments about the regular care staff. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People told us that the manager had responded to concerns which had been raised and they complimented the manager on the significant improvements which had been made at the service.

The quality monitoring systems in place had improved since our last visit. However additional work in relation to audits was on-going so that the provider could monitor and review the service they provided.

Management systems have been improved and were being used to measure the quality of the service. Meetings and other ways of communicating with people are being implemented so that people can share their views and opinions of the service. Although some areas still require further development it was positive to note the significant progress made which had resulted in better outcomes for the people being supported to live in their own homes.