We carried out a review of the data available to us about SentriCare East Mids Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about SentriCare East Mids Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
The office of the service is in central Derby.
The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes who need some support in living their lives.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People and relatives said that safe personal care had been provided to meet people’s needs.
Staff recruitment checks were carried out to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.
Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare, though some needed more detail to specify the exact risk and how to deal with this.
Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse). Staff members understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and to contact relevant agencies if needed.
The registered manager was aware that certain incidents, if they occurred, needed to be reported to us, as legally required.
Staff had largely received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Further specialist training was needed on people’s health conditions.
Staff members understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Staff were aware to ask people's consent when they provided personal care. Capacity assessments were not in place to determine how best to support people who did not have capacity to decide aspects of their lifestyles, though this did not have any impact on the service people received.
People and relatives told us that staff were very friendly, caring and kind. They said they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet personal care needs.
Care plans contained personalised information about people’s preferences and likes and dislikes, though there was little information about people’s history, which would help staff to ensure that people’s needs were fully met.
Staffing levels were sufficient to always provide people with the care they needed.
People and relatives were confident that any concerns they had would be properly followed up. They were satisfied with how the service was run. Staff members said they had been supported in their work by the registered manager.
Audits to measure that a quality service had been provided to people were carried out.
Staff worked in partnership with relatives so that people got the support they required from other agencies.
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated Good at the last inspection. Our last report was published for the inspection of August 2016.
Why we inspected.
This inspection was part of our scheduled plan of visiting services to check the safety and quality of care people received.
Follow up.
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people received safe, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
We visited the offices of Sentricare East Mids Ltd on 24 August 2016. We told the provider before the inspection visit we were coming so they could arrange for care workers to be available to talk with us .
The service had a registered manager. 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 felt safe using the service and there were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. These included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely.
Care workers understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse and keep people safe. Care workers suitability and character was checked during the recruitment process to make sure they were suitable to work with people who used the service.
The registered manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and care workers respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.
There were enough care workers to deliver the care and support people required. People said care workers arrived around the time expected and stayed long enough to complete the care people required. People told us care workers were kind and knew how they liked to receive their care.
Care workers received an induction when they started working for the service and completed regular training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. People told us care workers had the right skills to provide the care and support they required. Support records and risk assessments contained relevant information for staff to help them provide the care people needed in a way they preferred.
People knew how to complain and information about making a complaint was available for people. Care workers said they could raise any concerns or issues with the management team, knowing they would be listened to and acted on.
Staff felt supported to do their work and people felt able to contact the office and management at any time. There were systems to monitor and review the quality of service people received and understand the experiences of people who used the service. This was through regular communication with people and staff, returned surveys, spot checks on care workers and a programme of other checks and audits.
People we spoke with were happy with the care provided. One person told us that staff 'were always on time, they have manors and are really good at their job', another stated they were 'very good' and used all the relevant equipment.
The provider had carried out sufficient pre-employment checks on staff members helping to ensure that they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
The provider had quality assurance systems in place to help monitor and improve the service.
Although appropriate action had been taken the provider had not informed the commission about an allegation of abuse.
All the people we spoke with were very happy with the service and level of care provided. One person stated 'they are brilliant, fantastic'. Another person told us that 'they actually care'.
None of the people we spoke with had needed to complain. One person told us 'I can't believe how good they are'. A professional with knowledge of the service told us that they were 'very impressed' and that they 'couldn't fault them'.
The provider had completed care plans and reviewed these on a regular basis. However, we found that not all relevant risk assessments had been completed and some did not contain sufficient information.
One person told us 'I feel very safe when Sentricare staff are in my home'. A relative told us 'I feel that my relative is safe with the carer, I wouldn't leave them otherwise. I'd be straight on the phone to the manager if there was a problem'.
A person using the service told us 'I've never had to make any kind of complaint. I think I would know what to do and I am sure it would be dealt with. There is a complaints procedure in our information pack'.