Background to this inspection
Updated
12 August 2022
The inspection
We carried out this performance review and assessment under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act). We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations associated with the Act and looked at the quality of the service to provide a rating.
Unlike our standard approach to assessing performance, we did not physically visit the office of the location. This is a new approach we have introduced to reviewing and assessing performance of some care at home providers. Instead of visiting the office location we use technology such as electronic file sharing and video or phone calls to engage with people using the service and staff.
Inspection team
The inspection was conducted by one inspector.
Service and service type
Team A5 Head Office is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
Registered Manager
This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.
Notice of inspection
In line with our new approach we gave short period notice of this inspection and explained what was involved under the new methodology. Inspection activity took place on 30 June 2022.
What we did before the inspection
We looked at all the information we held about the provider, which included information they provided us when they were registered. On this occasion, the provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used all this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
This performance review and assessment was carried out without a visit to the location's office. We used technology such as video calls to enable us to engage with people using the service and staff, and electronic file sharing to enable us to review documentation.
We spoke with one relative, two staff members and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records. This included care plans and risk assessments. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
Updated
12 August 2022
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
About the service
Team A5 Head Office is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes. 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. The provider also supplied staff to care homes and hospitals. We did not review the care they received as it is outside our regulatory remit. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting one person whom was autistic.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found.
Right Support
Risks were not always assessed, monitored and managed. People using the service were not always protected from the risk of COVID-19 infection because the provider and staff did not always follow national guidance. Robust recruitment checks had not always taken place before staff started working. Whilst, we found no evidence that people had been harmed. This meant people were at risk of not receiving the right support.
Staff knew people well. The person using the service was unable to speak with us due to their care needs, however, the person’s relative spoke highly of Team A5 Head Office and praised the support their loved one received. Staff understood how to communicate with people and ensure their wishes and preferences were respected. Staff understood the importance of promoting independence and individuality. The management of medicines was safe, and staff told us that they felt supported and valued within their role. The provider trained staff to understand and meet people’s individual needs and staff received supervision. Staff’s competency to deliver safe and effective care was assessed and reviewed.
Right Care
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. Staff supported people with patience, dignity and respect. Care plans detailed what was important to people and staff told us how the training they had received made them feel confident to work with people. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had received training on safeguarding adults. Staff supported people to access the local community and partake in activities that were important to them.
Right Culture
The provider’s quality assurance framework was not robust. Internal quality audits had failed to identify shortfalls with the delivery and quality of care or how improvements could be made. Further actions and steps were required to ensure continuous learning was at the heart of service delivery.
However, the registered manager regularly sought feedback from staff and the person’s relative. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and felt the service was well run. The registered manager had a clear vision and was committed to making sure staff and people using the service were happy and felt valued.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Rating
This service was registered with us on 14 July 2017 and this is the first inspection.
Enforcement
We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.
We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance at this inspection. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.