Raynet Recruitment Agency Ltd

Updated 9 December 2020

The inspection

As part of a pilot into virtual inspections of domiciliary and extra-care housing services, the Care Quality Commission conducted an inspection of this provider on 29 October 2020. The inspection was carried out with the consent of the provider and was part of a pilot to gather information to inform CQC whether it might be possible to conduct inspections in a different way in the future. We completed this inspection using virtual methods and online tools such as electronic file sharing, video calls and phone calls to gather the information we rely on to form a judgement on the care and support provided. At no time did we visit the provider’s or location’s office as we usually would when conducting an inspection.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector and a member of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) medicines team.

Service and service type

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

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service over 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection.

Inspection activity began on 29 October 2020 and ended on 12 November 2020.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke in person with the registered manager. We contacted six people and their relatives, eight staff and two health care professionals, to get their experience and views about the care provided. We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment, training and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We requested additional evidence to be sent to us after our inspection. This included training information, and audits. We received the information which was used as part of our inspection.

Updated 9 December 2020

This report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.

About the service

Raynet Recruitment Agency Ltd is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to 11 people living in their own homes at the time of the inspection.

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. Six people using the service were receiving personal care.

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

The agency provided a service that was safe for people to use and staff to work for. People received their medicine on time and as prescribed, although some improvements in medicine management recording was needed.

We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines records.

The support people received, enabled them to live safely and enjoy their lives. This was because risks to people were assessed and monitored. The agency reported, investigated and recorded accidents and incidents and safeguarding concerns. Suitable numbers of appropriately recruited and trained staff were available to meet people’s needs.

The agency understood and carried out its responsibility to ensure people or their representatives consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidance.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the way staff provided them with care and support with attention to small details making all the difference. People’s rights to privacy, dignity and confidentiality were respected by staff. They were encouraged and supported to be independent and do the things, they could, for themselves. This promoted their self-worth and improved their quality of life. The agency provided staff who were very friendly, caring, and compassionate. They were also passionate about the people they provided a service for and the way they provided it.

People received person centred care and had individualised care plans that detailed their assessed needs, which were reviewed. People and their relatives were supported to decide how and when their needs were met. People were provided with suitable information to make their own decisions and end of life wishes were identified, if appropriate and adhered to. People’s communication needs were met. Complaints were recorded, investigated and learnt from.

The agency culture was very open, honest and positive with transparent leadership and management. Its vision and values were clearly defined, understood by staff and followed. Areas of responsibility and accountability were identified, staff understood them and were prepared to accept responsibility on the ground and report any concerns they may have to the management, in a timely way. Service quality was constantly reviewed, and the agency made real changes to continually improve the care and support people received. This was in a way that best suited people and included IT systems that enabled the agency to run smoothly and improve people’s experience of it. Audits were carried out, records kept up to date and performance shortfalls identified and acted upon except some medicine documents. The agency had well-established working partnerships that promoted a seamless service through co-operation with other healthcare professionals, people’s participation and minimised social isolation. Registration requirements were met.

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 22 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned pilot virtual inspection. The report was created as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations and responding to risk in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. This was conducted with the consent of the provider. Unless the report says otherwise, we obtained the information in it without visiting the Provider.

The pilot inspection considered the key questions of safe and well-led and provide a rating for those key questions. Only parts of the effective, caring and responsive key questions were considered, and therefore the ratings for these key questions are those awarded at the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.