Archived: Real PCS Ltd

Updated 23 October 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 office visit took place on 13 September 2018 and was announced. We told the registered manager 48 hours before our visit we would be coming so they could make sure they would be available and arrange for us to speak with their staff. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

We inspected the service because it was previously rated 'Good' and it was time for us to return to check whether the rating continued to be 'Good'.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us some key information about what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The information reflected the service we saw and we considered it when making our judgement.

Before our inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at the information received from our 'Share Your Experience' web forms and the statutory notifications the service had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. We also spoke with local authority commissioners. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services for people and fund the care provided. They did not share any information we were not already aware of.

We were sent a list of people who used the service before our inspection. However, people were not able to tell us in detail about their care and support because of their complex needs. Therefore, we spoke to four people’s relatives via the telephone to gather their views on the service people received. We used this information to form part of our judgements.

During our office visit we spoke with the administrator, one support worker, the team leader and a senior support worker. We also spoke with the registered manager and directors about what it was like to work at the service.

We looked at the care records of three people to see how their care was planned and delivered. We reviewed two staff files to check they had been recruited safely and were trained to deliver the care people required. We looked at other records related to peoples care and how the service operated including audits completed by the registered manager to assure themselves people received a good quality service.

Following our visit we spoke with three health and social care professionals to gather their views of the service people received.

Updated 23 October 2018

At our last inspection in November 2015, the service was rated 'Good'. At this inspection, the service continued to be good.

Real PCS Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to people with learning disabilities, older adults, younger adults, mental health conditions, people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments and substance misuse problems. It operates across Solihull and Warwickshire in the West Midlands. There were 30 people using the service at the time of this inspection and five people were in receipt of the regulated activity personal care.

The inspection site visit took place on 13 September 2018 and was announced.

A requirement of the service's registration is that they have 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A registered manager was in post and they were also a director of the service.

People’s relatives and social care professionals provided positive feedback about the caring service people received.

Staff knew the people they cared for well and spoke about them with warmth and affection. Staff were committed to improving people's wellbeing.

People's needs had been assessed before they had started to receive a service and different communication methods were used to ensure people were actively involved in their care. People's care plans contained detailed information to support staff to provide person centred care. People's individual religious and spiritual needs were known and respected.

People were supported to be as independent as they wished to be. People were treated with dignity and staff respected peoples righto privacy.

People’s relatives told us their family members felt safe because they received their care from familiar staff they knew and trusted. Procedures were in place to protect people from harm and staff knew how to manage the risks associated with people's care.

There were enough staff to support people safely and the provider's recruitment procedures minimised risks to people's safety.

Staff knew what action to take in the event of an emergency. Accidents and

incidents were monitored and action was taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to infection control which protected people from the risks of infection.

Relatives felt staff had the skills they needed to provide the care people required. Staff provided positive feedback about their training and new staff were provided with effective support when they started work at the service.

People received their medicines when they needed them from trained staff. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people received the support and treatment they needed to maintain their health.

The provider was working within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

The service was well led. Staff had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities and what was expected of them. They told us they enjoyed working at the service because their managers were approachable and supportive.

Effective systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service. People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable doing so. The management team promoted an open and transparent culture and encouraged feedback from people and their relatives to drive forward improvements.