SC Galaxy Care

SC Galaxy Care is a domiciliary care agency personal care to people living in their own homes. The service provides support to people over 65 years old. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service.

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.

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

People shared complimentary views about the service and the care workers who visited to provide care and support.

Staff understood the provider's safeguarding policy and how to keep people safe from harm. The provider's safeguarding processes ensured any allegations of abuse were reported and managed safely.

The provider’s recruitment policy and processes were used to employ experienced staff. Staff records contained pre-employment checks including the right to work in the UK to ensure people were cared for by suitable staff. Staff had sufficient training and support to help them carry out their jobs.

Each person had an assessment to identify risks to their health and wellbeing. A mitigation plan was in place to manage risks and staff had this guidance on how to support people safely.

Staff had ongoing training and implemented best practice to help them provide appropriate support to people and to report any concerns if these occurred. Support with meals was provided if this was part of their package of care. Health and social care professionals offered advice and assessments when changes in people’s needs occurred.

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.

Systems were in place to monitor the service, and to obtain feedback from people and staff.

For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this was rated good, (published, October 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. Please see the Safe, Effective and Well-led sections of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for SC Galaxy Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

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

At the last inspection on 6 June 2017, we found that the service did not meet fundamental standards in some aspects of the service. We found one breach of regulation relating to how staff supported people. The registered manager and staff did not understand how to support people to ensure that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were met. We requested the registered manager send us an action plan to tell us how they planned to make improvements to the service. We received this information as requested.

At this inspection we followed up on the breach of regulation to see if the registered provider had made improvements as required. We found the registered manager had taken action to address our concerns and now met the fundamental standards.

The service had 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.

The registered manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff completed training in the MCA which helped them identify when people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff gave people enough information and choices to enable them to make an informed decision and give staff their consent.

The registered provider had a safeguarding policy in place. Staff understood abuse and how to act to manage a safeguarding allegation and protected people from harm. The registered manager was kept updated on any safeguarding incidents in the service.

Staff identified risks to people’s health and wellbeing. Staff recorded these details in risk assessments and developed a plan to manage those risks for people.

There were sufficient members of staff to meet people’s care and support needs. The registered manager completed pre-employment checks while following a robust recruitment process.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff supported people with the administration of medicines. There were effective processes in place for the management of people’s medicines.

Staff were supported by the registered manager through a programme of induction, training supervision and appraisal.

Staff supported people to prepare meals of their choice. People had meals they enjoyed which met their preferences and dietary needs. People had access to healthcare services. This helped them to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing.

Assessments were completed with people using the service. Each person had an assessment of their needs and a care plan that guided staff to care for people safely. People could make decisions about how they wanted their care and support carried out.

The registered manager and staff were aware of end of life care. At the time of the inspection, there were no people receiving palliative support or end of life care.

People and their relatives said staff treated them with respect, kindness and were helpful. Staff respected people’s privacy and provided care in a dignified way.

The registered provider had an infection control policy. This guided staff on what actions to take to reduce the risk of infection.

The registered provider had a complaints policy. People were provided with a copy of the complaints process and information on how to make a complaint about the care and support they received.

The registered manager provided an environment which staff were happy to work in. Staff said the manager was open and honest and supported them when they needed this.

Quality monitoring of the service took place. The registered manager completed checks of the service to ensure it was of a good standard.

People gave their feedback to the registered manager about the quality of care and support they received.

The registered manager kept CQC informed of notifiable events that occurred at the service.

Partnership working was developed with health and social care professionals. Staff accessed these services to help people maintain their health and well-being.

The service had 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.

The registered manager and staff did not have an understanding of how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff completed training in the safe administration of people’s medicines. However, we found that medicine administration records (MARs) did not always have recorded when a medicine was not given. Since the inspection, the registered manager has sent us evidence demonstrating that they have reviewed the process for medicine audit systems.

Staff were supported by the registered manager. Staff had access to an induction, training, supervision and an appraisal. Newly employed staff underwent an induction and worked with experienced staff. However, we found that staff did not have a training programme in place and staff did not have the opportunity to complete refresher training to enable them to keep up to date with best practice. There was enough staff available to meet people’s care needs. The staff rota showed when two members of staff were required to safely care for people, because of their specific care needs.

The registered provider’s safeguarding policies and processes guided staff to help protect people from abuse. Staff knew the types of abuse, and when to raise a safeguarding alert. People provided consent to staff to receive care and support with their care needs.

Staff identified and managed risks to people‘s health and well-being. Staff developed risk management plans that contained details of the risks and action staff would take to manage them.

The registered manager followed safe recruitment processes. New members of staff had pre-employment checks completed, such as criminal record checks and references from previous employers. This helped to ensure the employment of suitable staff to work with people safely by verifying their identity, skills and abilities.

People’s nutritional needs were met by staff. This helped people to maintain their health and wellbeing. People had meals they wanted and in sufficient quantities. Staff supported people with shopping for food items if they wanted to make meals for themselves.

Health care services were available to people to meet their needs. Staff followed health care professional guidance to help people maintain their health. Consent to care was provided by people before receiving care.

People using the service and their relatives made decisions about the care they received. Assessments included people’s care and support needs. Care was planned and delivered in a way that was person centred and incorporated people’s likes dislikes and personal preferences.

Staff provided care and support to people in a way that showed they respected their dignity and privacy. Staff knew people well including their needs.

People were supported to attend activities of their choice. People were supported to live a life that met their abilities and helped them to maintain some independence. People continued to have contact with people in their lives that mattered to them.

People had regular assessments of their needs. Staff completed regular care reviews with people to ensure the care they received was relevant. People using the service and their relatives understood what actions they needed to take to complain about the care they received. The registered manager kept the Care Quality Commission [CQC] informed of notifiable incidents, which occurred at the service.

The registered manager had clear leadership which staff told us they valued. There was a positive culture within the staff team. Staff we spoke with said they enjoyed their job and were proud to work for the service.

The registered provider had quality assurance systems in place. Staff completed regular checks of the quality of care. People were able to provide feedback of the service and staff underwent regular observations and spot checks to ensure they practiced safely.

We have made a recommendation in relation to staff training and we also found the service was in breach of the regulation relating to consent. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.