Background to this inspection
Updated
28 September 2017
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 visit took place on 27 and 28 July 2017 and both days were announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that the registered managers would be available to speak with us.
The inspection team included an inspector and an expert by experience (ExE). An ExE is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection visit, 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 reviewed information that we held about the service to plan and inform our inspection. This included information that we had received from people who used the service and from other interested parties. We also reviewed statutory notifications. A statutory notification contains information relating to significant events that the provider must send to us. We contacted the local authority who has funding responsibility for some people living at the home and Healthwatch (the consumer champion for health and social care) to ask them for their feedback about the service.
During our inspection visit we spoke with four people who used the service. We also spoke with seven relatives of people who used the service. We spoke with the regional manager, one registered manager, five team leaders, and four support workers.
We looked at the care records of six people who used the service. We also looked at records in relation to people’s medicines, health and safety and documentation about the management of the service. These included policies and procedures, training records and quality checks that the registered managers had undertaken. We looked at four staff files to look at how the provider had recruited and supported staff members.
Updated
28 September 2017
We inspected the service on 27 and 28 July 2017 and both days were announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that the registered managers would be available to speak with us.
East Midlands Domiciliary Care Branch provides personal care to adults with a range of needs including people with a learning disability living in their own homes. At the time of the inspection there were 49 people using the service.
At the time of our inspection there was two registered managers in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The service had two registered managers to share the work between them.
People and their relatives told us that they felt safe while they received support from staff at East Midlands Domiciliary Care Branch. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and to remain safe. There were procedures in place to manage incidents and accidents.
Risks associated with people’s support had been assessed and reviewed. Where risks had been identified control measures were in place to protect people’s health and welfare. Checks had been completed on equipment that people used and the environment to ensure they were safe.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They were recruited following the provider’s procedures to makes sure people were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes. Staff received appropriate support through an induction and regular supervision. There was training available for staff to provide and update them on safe ways of working.
People received support with their prescribed medicines from staff who had completed training in how to administer medicines safely. Guidance was available to staff on the safe handling of people’s medicines.
People were encouraged to follow a balanced diet. We saw that people chose their own meals and were involved in making them. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. This included having access to healthcare services such as to their GP.
People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 20015 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff told us that they sought people’s consent before providing support.
People were involved in decisions about their support. They told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect. We saw that people’s records were stored safely and staff spoke about people’s support requirements in private.
People were supported to develop skills to maintain their independence. Support plans contained information about people, their likes, dislikes and preferences.
People were supported by staff who they knew well and who they felt listened to them. They received support that was centred on them as a person.
People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available so that people knew the procedure to follow should they want to make a complaint.
People and staff felt the service was well managed. The service was led by two registered managers who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. Staff felt supported by the registered managers.
People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the quality of the service that they had received. Systems and processes were in place so that checks were carried out on the quality of the service that was delivered.