Avidity Care

Updated 21 June 2018

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 was 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 8 June 2018. The provider was given three days notice of our visit because we wanted to ensure the provider was available to support the inspection. One inspector carried out the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) submitted by the provider on 11 May 2018. The PIR 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.

During our inspection we visited the agency’s office and spoke with the provider, the manager and the care co-ordinator. We checked care records for two people, including their assessments, care plans and risk assessments and three staff recruitment files. After the inspection the provider sent us further information including staff training records, quality monitoring audits, the service action plan and the agency’s policies and procedures.

Following the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and six relatives by telephone to hear their views about the care the agency provided. We received feedback via email from four staff about the training and support they received to do their jobs. We also received feedback from four health and social care professionals who worked with the agency.

This was the first inspection of the service since its registration with CQC on 2 June 2017.

Updated 21 June 2018

The inspection took place on 8 June 2018 and was announced.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older adults, including people living with dementia. There were 14 people using the service at the time of this inspection, two of whom were receiving live-in care.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The previous registered manager had left on 2 February 2018. The current manager started work on 21 May 2018 and had applied for registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Like registered providers, registered managers 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.

People felt safe when staff provided their care. Staff understood any risks involved in people’s care and managed these well.

The agency had missed some care calls in the period before our inspection, which meant people had not received a safe and reliable service. The provider had taken action to reduce the risk of further missed calls and to ensure sufficient staff were available to carry out all scheduled calls. We made a recommendation that the provider implement a call monitoring system which would alert the office if a care worker failed to arrive for a scheduled visit.

There were procedures for staff to follow if they were unable to contact a person when they arrived to provide their care. Staff had access to management support and advice when they needed it, including out-of-hours.

There were plans in place to ensure people’s care would not be interrupted in an emergency. Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed to identify what action could be taken to prevent a recurrence.

The provider had appropriate recruitment procedures to help ensure they employed only suitable staff. Staff attended safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities in terms of recognising and reporting abuse.

Medicines were managed safely. Some shortfalls in medicines recording had been identified in a recent audit but the manager had taken action to ensure these were addressed.

Staff maintained appropriate standards of infection control. Staff helped people keep their homes clean and hygienic and wore personal protective equipment when providing care.

People’s needs were assessed before they used the service to ensure staff could provide their care. People were encouraged to contribute to their assessment to ensure they agency understood their needs and preferences.

Staff had access to the training and support they needed to do their jobs. Staff attended an induction which included all elements of mandatory training and had access to additional training relevant to the needs of the people they cared for. Staff had opportunities to meet with their managers to discuss their performance and training and development needs.

People’s care was provided in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff understood the importance of consent and respected people’s choices about their care. If people lacked the capacity to make decisions, relevant people had been consulted to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed when they began to use the service. A care plan was developed to meet any identified dietary needs and specialist professional input obtained where necessary.

Staff monitored people’s healthcare needs and responded appropriately if their health deteriorated. Staff accompanied some people to healthcare appointments and communicated with healthcare professionals where people wished them to do so.

Staff were kind and caring. People had developed positive relationships with their care workers and enjoyed their company. Relatives said staff treated their family members with respect and maintained their dignity when providing care. Staff supported people to maintain their independence wherever possible.

People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Each person had an individual care plan, to which they were encouraged to contribute. Care plans provided detailed guidance for staff about how to provide the support people needed in the way they preferred.

Professionals told us staff provided people’s care according to the guidelines contained in their care plans, which ensured people’s needs were met. Relatives and professionals said the agency responded effectively if people’s needs changed or if they suggested changes that could improve people’s experience of care.

The agency had a written procedure which set out how complaints would be managed. No complaints had been received but people knew how to complain if necessary and were confident any concerns they raised would be taken seriously.

There had been challenges to the effective management of the service following the resignation of the previous registered manager. However the provider had taken action since then to establish an effective management team. A new manager and a care co-ordinator had started work in May 2018. The manager had improved the monitoring of the service and included any areas for improvement in the agency’s development plan.

People and their relatives had opportunities to give their views about the care the agency provided. People told us their views were listened to and their feedback acted upon. Staff felt well-supported by the management team and said they had access to support and advice when they needed it. The agency had established effective working relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care, including GPs, district nurses and occupational therapists.