Civicare East Ltd Also known as Abacus Care (Essex) Limited

Updated 21 March 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 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.

We completed a comprehensive inspection on 13 February 2018, which was announced. We gave the service 24 hours notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection team was made up of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications submitted by the provider. Statutory notifications contain information about important events that happen at the service, which the provider is required to send to us by law. We also spoke with the local authority who commissions services for their feedback.

As part of the inspection, we spoke with the registered manager, the human resources manager, the in-house trainer and five care staff. We completed a home visit to observe staff practice. We interviewed seven people who used the service and four relatives.

Updated 21 March 2018

Civicare East Limited is a domiciliary care agency that provides care and support to people within their own homes.

At the last inspection the service was rated good. At this inspection the overall rating remains good.

People felt safe using the service although some people expressed concerns regarding not being informed of changes to staff and not being introduced to new staff who had not visited them before.

Risks were identified and information on risks to people was shared with staff. However, recording information on risks and guidance on how to manage them in people’s care plans required improvement.

All staff had completed safeguarding training and there were systems and processes in place to respond to incidents or allegations of abuse.

There were sufficient staff employed who had been safely recruited. Staff had time to spend with people and were not rushed. There were no reported incidents of missed visits and care staff were generally punctual. However, when staff were going to be late this was not always well communicated to people.

Staff had received training in how to administer medicines. However, improvements were required to ensure more robust assessment and monitoring of staff competence to safely manage people's medicines.

We made a recommendation that protocols for ‘as needed’ medicines be introduced to ensure a more robust medicine management system.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed. Lessons were learned and action taken to improve the quality and safety of the service for people.

Staff received an induction, training, regular supervisions and spot checks and appraisals. This ensured staff had the necessary knowledge and skills to be competent in their role.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's consent was sought before care and support was provided.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and received support to access healthcare professionals when their health needs changed.

Staff were kind and caring and often went the extra mile. People’s preferences were known and respected. People were treated with dignity and felt listened to. People received care and support how they liked it and their independence was encouraged.

People received care that was tailored to meet their individual needs. People’s care was regularly reviewed and any feedback from people or their relatives was acted upon. People were supported to access the community and engage in activities they enjoyed.

There were systems in place to manage complaints and people knew how to make a complaint. Feedback from staff, people and relatives was sought and acted upon to improve the service

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the safety and effectiveness of the service. There was robust oversight of the service and clear lines of accountability at staff, management and provider level.

Further information is in the detailed findings below