Archived: Caritas Care Solutions Ltd

Updated 5 January 2016

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 registered 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.

This inspection took place on 13 November 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked our systems for any notifications that had been sent in as these would tell us how the registered provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service.

We spoke with the local safeguarding team, the local authority contracts and commissioning teams in Hull and East Riding, NHS commissioning and Continuing Health. There were no concerns expressed by these agencies.

We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager, a director of the service (who is a nurse and completed support visits to people) and two care workers.

We looked at all four care files which belonged to people who used the service. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included three staff recruitment files, the training record, a staff supervision plan, the employee handbook and ‘service user’ handbook, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance of equipment records. We checked the registered provider’s website for comments left by people who had used the service.

Updated 5 January 2016

Caritas Care Solutions Limited is a new domiciliary care provider with the scope to provide support in people’s own homes in Hull and the East Riding of Yorkshire. The main office is located on the first floor of the KC Lightstream Stadium which is just off a main road in East Hull. There is a lift which makes the office accessible to people with mobility difficulties. There is a reception which is covered by staff during usual working hours. There is a car park at the front of the building.

The service has 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.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on the 13 November 2015. This was the first inspection since the service registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 May 2015. On the day of the inspection there were four people using the service.

We found staff employment checks were carried out but there had been some instances when not all checks had been in place for staff prior to the start of their employment. The members of staff had not worked alone with people and they had been known by the registered manager. However, the registered manager told us this would be changed and all checks were to be in place prior to the start of the staff’s employment in future.

We found there were sufficient numbers of staff to support the people currently using the service; further recruitment would take place when the service grew in size.

There were policies and procedures to guide staff in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff knew what to do to raise any concerns. There were risk assessments in place to assist staff in minimising identified risks although these could be more comprehensive. The registered manager and director told us they were to address these.

Staff told us they did not administer any medicines to people, as they completed this task themselves or they had relatives to support them. However, training for staff had been arranged in case the need for this support arose. Staff helped people to maintain their health by monitoring general health, completing skin checks and documenting any concerns. They told us they would report any concerns to relatives who provided care to people and would contact health care professionals as required.

We saw people had their needs assessed prior to the start of the service and care plans were produced. In discussions with two relatives of people who used the service, it was clear they received person-centred care. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, however the care plans did not always contain full information which could mean new staff may not have all the guidance they need.

People told us the staff’s approach was kind and caring and in discussions, the staff demonstrated they knew how to promote values such as privacy, dignity and respect; staff sought consent prior to completing care tasks. We found people who used the service had choices about the care they received. The registered manager and director worked within mental capacity legislation and had organised staff to complete training in this area in January 2016.

We found staff had completed training in specific important areas during induction and further courses had been built into a training plan. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and director although we saw formal supervision sessions and appraisal had not taken place yet.

There was a complaints policy and procedure and people felt able to raise concerns in the belief they would be addressed.

Although the registered manager and director sought people’s views during spot checks and when they delivered care to them, the formal quality monitoring system had not been implemented yet. The service was new and the quality monitoring system will be assessed more fully at the next inspection.