Background to this inspection
Updated
6 May 2015
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 9 February 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours notice that we intended to inspect the service. This allowed the provider time to collect information about the care people received in their homes which we might have wanted to review.
The inspection team consisted of two inspectors. We visited the provider’s office, met with a person who used the service in their own home and spoke to people who used the service, their relatives and staff by telephone.
Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also checked if the provider had sent us any notifications since our last visit. These contain details of events and incidents the provider is required to notify us about by law, including unexpected deaths and injuries occurring to people receiving care. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.
During our inspection we spoke with two people who used the service, the relatives of five other people, the registered manager and six members of staff. We visited one person in their home to observe how their care was provided. We looked at records including four people’s care plans and staff training. We looked at the provider’s records for monitoring the quality of the service and how they responded to issues raised.
After our inspection we spoke to a person who commissioned the service to obtain their views of the care people received.
Updated
6 May 2015
This inspection took place on 9 February 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours notice that we intended to inspect the service. This allowed the provider time to collect information about the care people received in their homes which we might have wanted to review.
Voyage (DCA) (West Midlands) is a domiciliary care agency which provides care to people who have learning disabilities in their own homes and in supported living schemes. At the time of our inspection 35 people were receiving personal care from the service. There was a registered manager at this location. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our last inspection in May 2014 the provider was compliant with all the regulations we looked at.
All the people we spoke with told us that the service protected people from the risk of harm. Staff knew how to recognise when people might be at risk of harm and how to respond and the provider had made relatives aware of how to raise concerns. There were enough staff to safely meet people’s needs.
Staff received regular training and were confident they had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s need. The relatives expressed their confidence that staff looked after their loved ones very well. Staff received training updates as peoples conditions changed so they knew how to meet people’s current care needs.
The provider was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff knew how to obtain consent from people and best interest meetings were held when assessments identified that people lacked capacity. Staff often signed care plans when people were unable to sign themselves. There was a risk that staff would not be impartial to people’s needs.
People received sufficient nutrition to keep them well. When necessary the provider arranged for people to be supported by other health care providers to ensure they maintained their health.
Staff spoke affectionately about the people they supported and relatives told us that staff were very caring and compassionate. The provider respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported people to be as independent as they wanted.
The provider was responsive to people’s care needs and respected their wishes. People were supported by staff they said they liked and were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them.
People were regularly encouraged to comment about the service they received and felt confident the provider would respond to their concerns. The provider had a process to review concerns and incidents to identify how to reduce the risk of similar events from reoccurring.
Staff felt supported by the manager and understood their roles and responsibilities.
The provider had an effective system in place in order to evaluate the quality of the care they provided. The provider took prompt action when necessary in order to improve the quality of the service.