Candid Health & Social Care Ltd

Updated 24 January 2024

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by 1 inspector and 1 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.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post. A new manager had been in post for three months and had submitted an application to register with the Care Quality Commission. We are currently assessing this application.

Notice of inspection

The inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider would be in the office to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since they registered with CQC. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with the manager, human resources/quality assurance manager, three care staff and the nominated individual. A nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

We reviewed a range of records. This included 2 people’s care records. We looked at staff files in relation to training and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

We spoke with 2 relatives of people using the service about their experience of the care provided. We did not speak with people using the service as they were unavailable to talk to us.

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We reviewed further risk assessment, care plans and information relating to the management of the service.

Updated 24 January 2024

Candid Health Care (CHC) Ltd is a is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes and flats. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, 2 people were receiving personal care and support.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We found a breach of a regulation relating to good governance. Quality assurances systems were not effectively used to monitor the quality of care. For example, the provider did not ensure records of staff meetings and supervisions were maintained. In addition, quality assurance records were not consistently kept such as contact with people using the service and spot checks undertaken to monitor the quality of care provided.

Staff did not receive periodic supervisions and an annual appraisal of their performance in line with the provider’s policy and procedures. The provider failed to note that all learning and development and required training completed should be monitored and appropriate action taken quickly when training requirements are not being met.

Despite these findings, people and their relatives were happy with the care provided. Their comments included, “I am very happy with my carers” and “[Staff] are pretty good with [person]. They are all caring [care staff].”

People received care when needed. People were cared for by staff who were recruited safely. Staff underwent an induction before they started providing care.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. One relative told us, “I feel [family member] is safe when they go out. [Person is always happy with the [staff].” Staff understood their responsibility to protect people from harm and abuse and to whistle blow concerns. Risk assessments were undertaken and support plans provided guidance to ensure staff were able to provide care safely. People were supported to take their medicines when required. Staff understood and followed infection control procedures to reduce the risk of contamination.

Staff told us they felt well supported in their roles. The manager told us the organisation was undergoing management change and had plans in place to formalise supervisions and any additional support provided to staff. People received the support they required to maintain good health and their well-being.

People received care from regular staff. This enabled them to develop positive and meaningful caring relationships. Staff upheld people’s dignity and privacy. People told us they consented to the care delivered to them. People received support to maintain their independence and to make decisions and choices about their daily living.

People’s care and support needs were met. Reviews were undertaken and updates made to care and support plans to reflect changes to each person’s needs. People received support to access health services when needed. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care.

People, their relatives and staff were happy with the running of the service. They felt their views were considered. The manager understood their responsibility to promote a culture of learning when things went wrong to minimise the risk of incidents happening again. The manager worked in partnership with other agencies and health and social care professionals to ensure people were supported as appropriate to meet their needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 18 December 2018) at this inspection, the rating has deteriorated to Requires improvement.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.