Archived: Right at Home (Preston & South Ribble)

Updated 3 September 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 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 14 and 18 July 2016. We told the provider two working days before our initial visit that we would be coming. This was to ensure the registered manager and other members of staff would be available to answer our questions during the inspection.

The inspection team consisted of the lead adult social care inspector for the service 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. The expert by experience made phone calls to people and relatives on the 18 July to talk with them about their experience of the service. The lead inspector visited the registered office on the 14 July to look at records, which included four people’s care records, four staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the agency which included audits for the service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with a range of people about the service, this included six members of staff, including the Registered Manager, franchise owner and four care givers. We also spoke with three people who used the service and five relatives of people who used the service.

We contacted the Local Authority contracts team and safeguarding team to obtain their views on the service.

Updated 3 September 2016

This inspection took place on the 14 and 18 July 2016 and was announced to ensure that the Registered Manager and appropriate staff were available to speak with.

The Registered Manager was present during the visit to the registered premises and was cooperative throughout the inspection process. 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.

Right at Home Preston & South Ribble was first registered with the Care quality Commission on 8 June 2015. This was the services first inspection since its registration.

Right at Home Preston & South Ribble is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care for people in their own homes. The agency operates from an office situated in the village of Walmer Bridge, which is located on the outskirts of the city of Preston and is close to the towns of Leyland, Penwortham and Tarleton.

At the time of our inspection the service was delivering approximately 700 hours of care per week to 106 people. There were 42 members of care staff employed by the agency at the time of our inspection. The number of hours delivered and staff employed, shortly prior to our inspection, had approximately double in size due to taking a large amount of care packages from another local domiciliary care provider. The new packages of care and staff had transferred to Right at Home on 9 June 2016 after a short period of due diligence.

There had been issues covering some of the new care packages when the transfer of business had occurred which meant the service had to give notice to the Local Authority during the first week for four people as staff were not in place to cover the new care packages. At the time of our inspection these issues had settled down and appropriate action plans were in place. One additional person care had been served notice on their care since the initial four care packages had ceased and meetings had been held with the Local Authority contracts team to ensure provision was in place to meet all the other people’s needs who received care from the agency.

We spoke with the franchise owner and Registered Manager regarding this issue who accepted that the period of due diligence had not been as thorough as it should have been. The agency had subsequently sought legal advice due to the issues experienced as they felt they had not been given the appropriate information from the previous provider and this was ongoing at the time of the inspection.

The service had procedures in place for dealing with allegations of abuse. Staff were able to describe to us what constituted abuse and the action they would take to escalate concerns. Staff members spoken with said they would not hesitate to report any concerns they had about care practices.

We looked at the systems for medicines management. We saw that appropriate risk assessments were in place for people who managed their own medication and it was made very clear in people’s care plans if assistance was required with medication management.

The service had recruitment policies and procedures in place to help ensure safety in the recruitment of staff. Prospective employees were asked to undertake checks prior to employment to help ensure they were not a risk to vulnerable people.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported in their role and they received regular supervision with their manager. We saw evidence of a robust training programme and that staff were up to date with training requirements. Staff we spoke with confirmed this to be the case.

We saw evidence that the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. Staff we spoke with understood the legislation and how it affected their caring role.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received from the service and that the approach of all staff was caring, compassionate and dignified.

All the care plans we looked at contained a detailed care needs assessment carried out by the agency. We found care plans to be person centred and individual to each person. People had a one page profile in place which meant that staff could, at a glance, see people’s history and preferences. A one page profile had been developed for staff which assisted with matching people who used the service and caregivers.

We saw that the service had a detailed complaints policy in place. People we spoke with and their relatives told us they knew how to raise issues, including how to make a complaint and that communication with the service was good. They also told us they felt confident that any issues raised would be listened to and addressed.

People we spoke with talked positively about the service they received. People spoke positively about the management of the service and the communication within the service. All the people we spoke with knew who the registered manager was as did most of the relatives we spoke with.

A range of Quality Audit systems were in place at the service which we saw evidence of. We saw that audits and quality assurance systems feedback into improving the service.