Archived: Day and Nightcare Live-in Care Ltd

Updated 2 March 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.

This inspection took place on the 31 January 2017. It was an announced inspection. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the manager is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that someone would be in. This inspection was conducted by one inspector.

We spoke with three people, one relative, five care staff, the office manager and the manager. We looked at four people’s care records, four staff files and medicine administration records. We also looked at a range of records relating to the management of the service. The methods we used to gather information included pathway tracking, which is capturing the experiences of a sample of people by following a person’s route through the service and getting their views on their care.

Before the inspection we looked at notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about in law. In addition we contacted the local authority commissioner of services to obtain their views on the service.

Updated 2 March 2017

We conducted an announced inspection of Day and Nightcare Live in Care Ltd on 31 January 2017.

Day and Nightcare Live in Care is a subsidiary of Day and Nightime DCA Witney. They provide live in carers to both the private sector and those who are funded by the local authority. At the time of our inspection 12 people were using the service.

There was not a registered manager in post. 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. At the time of this inspection the manager was applying to CQC to register as registered manager.

The service was operating from a location that was not part of the conditions of their registration. This address was 9 Hollow Way, Cowley, Oxford, OX44 2NA.

Before the inspection we asked the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This document had not been completed.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. The service sought people’s opinions through regular surveys. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning needs were identified and action taken to make improvements which promoted people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care. However, there was no system to investigate and analyse accidents and incidents. The manager was aware of this concern and was planning to put a system in place.

We were greeted warmly by staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. The atmosphere in the office was open and friendly.

People told us they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and provided support with compassion and kindness. People received quality care that was personalised and met their needs.

Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage these risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were consistently maintained. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the manager and senior staff. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.

People told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the manager and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.