Archived: CRW Leeds

Updated 27 March 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 checked 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.

The comprehensive inspection took place between 8 and 28 November 2018.

Inspection site visit activity started on 8 and ended on 28 November. It included visits to people in their homes on 20 and 22 November 2018 and phone calls to staff on 28 November 2018. We visited the office location on 8 and 23 November 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection, so that the registered manager could contact people being supported and ask if they would be willing to provide us with feedback about their support.

The inspection was carried out by three adult social care inspectors.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service including notifications we had received from the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. As part of the inspection we contacted health and social care professionals who were involved with the service for their comments, including community nurses and a social worker. We also contacted the local authority contracts team.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information 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.

During the inspection we visited four people in their own homes who received support from the service and three relatives. We spoke with three support workers, the registered manager and the managing director. The registered manager has since left the service. We reviewed the care records of two people who received support from the service. We looked at service records for three staff including staff recruitment, supervision and training records, policies and procedures, complaints and compliments records and audits of the service delivered and its quality and safety.

Updated 27 March 2019

We carried out an announced inspection of CRW Leeds. We carried out an announced inspection of CRW Leeds between 8 and 28 November 2018. CRW Leeds is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older people, younger adults, people with a physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 10 people.

This was our first inspection of this service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People told us they received safe care. Staff told us they had been recruited safely although documentation to support this was not always present. Staff were aware of how to safeguard adults at risk although risk assessments had not been completed to direct staff. There was not always safe processes in place for the management and administration of medicines.

Audits and checks of the service were not completed regularly. We found the checks completed were ineffective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were maintained at the service.

Care records documenting people’s needs and preference were absent. Risk assessments documenting and directing staff how to minimise the risk when supporting people were absent.

People receiving support and their relatives told us staff visited them mostly on time and stayed as long as they should. They liked the staff who supported them and told us they were usually supported by staff they knew. Although agency workers covered most of the shifts, it was usually the same agency workers that visited people.

Staff received an induction and appropriate training. However, we found some gaps in training for some staff. People receiving support and their relatives felt that staff were competent and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

People mostly received appropriate support with eating, drinking and their healthcare needs. Referrals were made to community health and social care professionals to ensure that people’s needs were met.

People told us staff respected their right to privacy and dignity. They told us staff took their time when providing support and encouraged them to be independent.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw evidence that people usually received care that reflected their needs, risks and preferences. People told us their care needs had been discussed with them in the past although staff were not always aware of changes in people’s needs. Initial assessments had not been completed with people prior to support being offered.

People being supported and their relatives told us they were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the registered manager and staff approachable and helpful.

Staff felt well supported and fairly treated by the registered manager and the provider.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, namely Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17, Good governance. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.