Red Sea Community Programme

Updated 5 February 2019

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 26 November 2018 and was announced.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small, and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and one expert by experience. The expert by experience contacted people who used the service and relatives and undertook telephone interviews on 3rd and 4th December 2018. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider. A notification is information about important events that the registered provider is legally required to send us, for example if someone using the service sustains a serious injury.

We usually request the provider completes a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a document we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. On this occasion we had not requested the return of a PIR prior to the commencement of the inspection.

During our inspection, we spent time looking at records, which included five people's care records, five staff recruitment files and records relating to the management of the service. We also spoke with two people who used the service, 18 relatives, three care workers, the registered manager and the nominated individual. We contacted the local commissioning team asking for feedback.

Updated 5 February 2019

This inspection was carried out on 26 November 2018 and was announced. During our last inspection on 16 November 2017 we found the service to be in breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. The service failed to provide comprehensive risk assessments and risk management plans, which ensured care workers had the appropriate guidance in responding to risk in relation to carrying out the regulated activity of personal care. We also gave the service a recommendation to review their quality assurance systems to ensure that these were suitably effective in responding to shortfalls.

The service sent us an action plan shortly after our inspection informing us that they had made the relevant adjustments and improved their risk assessment procedure, by providing greater detail about how to safely manage risk in relation to carrying out the regulated activity of personal care.

During our inspection on 26 November 2018, we found that the provider had improved and reviewed risk assessments. We saw that risk assessments had greater detail about how to manage the risks. However, risks assessments were found to be generic and did not clearly relate to the individual. People who used the service and relatives raised no concerns regarding care practices when providing personal care. Care workers demonstrated good understanding of how to minimise risk to people who used the service when providing personal care. We further found during this inspection that the service had improved their quality assurance monitoring processes and found them now to be effective.

Red Sea Community Programme (RSCP) is a small domically care agency located in Harlesden, North West London. During the day of our inspection the service provided personal care to 24 people, most of the people were from Somali background, living in their own home. The service employed 21 care workers.

Not everyone using RSCP receives a regulated activity; Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

A manager was registered with the CQC. 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.’

Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to ensure all care visits were made, with staff staying the required length of time and completing required tasks. Staff received appropriate training and they told us the training was good and relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the registered manager and received formal supervision where they could discuss their ongoing development needs.

People who used the service and their relatives told us staff were helpful, attentive and caring. People and relatives told us that they were treated with respect and compassion.

Care plans were up to date and detailed what care and support people wanted and needed at each care visit. People felt safe and appropriate referrals were made to the safeguarding team when necessary.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People's healthcare needs were being met and people received assistance with their medicines if required. If people received support with their nutrition, this is recorded in people’s care records.

People who used the service knew how to raise a complaint and care workers were aware of the appropriate action to be taken. The complaints procedure was displayed. Records showed complaints received had been dealt with.

Everyone spoke highly of the registered manager and nominated individual and said they were approachable and supportive. The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and where issues were identified they acted to make improvements.

We found all the fundamental standards were being met. Further information is in the detailed findings below.