Archived: Fast 24

Updated 8 December 2018

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 took place on 8 November 2018. On the 16 November 2018 we contacted people to get feedback about their experience of the service. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our intended inspection to make sure that appropriate staff were available to assist us with the inspection.

Before our inspection we reviewed information, we held about the service including statutory notifications relating to the service. This included the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that requires them to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection We spoke with one relative, two staff members and the registered manager. We looked at one care plan, three employment files, quality monitoring records and other relevant documents relating to how the service operated.

Updated 8 December 2018

Fast 24 is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection 31 people were supported by Fast 24.

Not everyone using Fast 24 receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. There was only one person who received personal care at the time of the inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The registered manager is also the provider for this location.

The service was safe. Staff received training about safeguarding and were competent to report any concerns. There were enough staff to ensure people received support at a time they wanted. Safe recruitment practices were in place to employ suitable staff. Staff understood the importance of good infection control and wore appropriate equipment provided to keep people safe. Staff received training in medicines. However, at the time of the inspection people managed their own medicines.

The service was effective. Staff completed induction and training to meet people’s needs effectively. Staff received regular supervision and meetings. The registered manager and staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) principles, staff understood the importance of promoting people’s choice. Care needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff supported people with their nutritional and hydration requirements.

The service was caring. Staff were introduced to people and delivered care in a compassionate way. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to maintain relationships. Staff delivered care that was supportive, kind and caring. People were involved in the planning and reviews of their care and support.

The service was very responsive. People`s needs were assessed to ensure people received the support they required. People were involved with their care reviews and received support that promoted their independence. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints if required and received their calls at the appropriate time for them.

The service was well-led. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The registered manager was clear about their vision and values for the service and what they wanted to achieve. The registered manager had an overview of the service, identified issues were actioned. Regular surveys and visits were completed to ensure people’s views were sought. Staff felt there was strong leadership and could contact the registered manager at any time.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.