We carried out a review of the data available to us about Falcon-Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Falcon-Care, you can give feedback on this service.
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. At the time of the inspection nine people were using the service.
The service was managed by a registered manager who had been in post since 2 May 2017 and registered with CQC in September 2017. 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.
People using the service told us they felt safe. The registered manager monitored staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met and that people were supported by enough skilled staff. Safeguarding adults’ procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Potential risks to people's safety and welfare had been assessed and preventive measures had been put in place where required.
Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the service. A Disclosure and Barring Service check (DBS) had been completed for each staff member before they commenced employment to help the service make safer recruitment decisions.
Whilst the service were not currently supporting anyone with their medicines, the staff had received appropriate training and policies and procedures were in place. Staff knew their responsibilities and told us that when supporting people with medicines they have their competency checked on a regular basis.
There were infection control policies and procedures in place and staff were aware of their responsibilities. They talked to us about using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and aprons. PPE was available to collect from the office.
Staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people's individual needs effectively. They completed an induction programme when they started work and the majority were up to date with the provider's mandatory training. A number of people still had to undertake mandatory training but we were shown this had been arranged.
People were supported to make decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent before they provided support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; however not all staff were fully aware of their responsibilities around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Staff members we spoke with were able to tell us how they ensured people’s healthcare needs were met. Care files we looked at showed contact details for all healthcare professionals involved in a persons’ care and support needs.
All the people we spoke with and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. We received very positive feedback about the staff. When speaking with staff members during our inspection they spoke about people they were supporting in a kind, respectful and caring manner.
We looked at the care plans for people who used the service. We found that whilst a lot of information was contained within care plans, such as hobbies, interests, likes and dislikes, these were task focused rather than focused on the needs and/or wishes of the person. We were assured that new care plans were being introduced in the near future.
We checked if the provider was following the Accessible Information Standard. The Standard was introduced on 31 July 2016. The registered manager was not aware of this standard, although assured us they would undertake further learning to enhance their knowledge in this area.
We looked at how technology was used within the service to support people to receive timely care and support. Staff members were able to access all the policies and procedures in place in the service on their mobile phones; they would also receive an alert if a policy was updated. There were computers, Wi-Fi and other pieces of equipment in the office to assist with the day to day running of the service.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to end of life care. Whilst the service were not currently supporting anyone at the end of their life, staff had received training and were knowledgeable and confident in this area.
Staff members we spoke with felt the service was well run by the registered manager and they were supported in their roles. They told us they were encouraged to discuss suggestions of how the service could be improved and were confident they would be listened to. They also felt the registered manager was approachable and had an open door policy.
The registered manager was able to describe how they continuously looked for feedback on how the service could be improved from people who used the service, their relatives, external professionals and staff members.