Comfort Call Rotherham

Updated 3 October 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 registered 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 inspection included a visit to the agency’s office on 29 August 2018. To make sure key staff were available to assist in the inspection, the registered provider was given short notice of the visit, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. An adult social care inspector carried out the inspection with the assistance of an expert by experience, who spoke with people who used the service or their relatives on the telephone. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on during the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service, such as notifications sent to us by the registered provider and information from people who contacted us to share their experiences. We also requested the views of other agencies that worked with the service, such as service commissioners, social workers and Healthwatch Doncaster. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We spoke on the telephone with five people who used the service and seven relatives. We also considered the responses to questionnaires we sent to people. We spoke with the registered manager, two care coordinators, the regional manager and eight care workers, either face to face at the office or on the telephone.

We looked at the system for arranging visits to people and documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. This included checking four people’s care records, how complaints and concerns had been managed, staff recruitment, training and support documentation, and the quality assurance systems, to check if they were robust and had identified areas for improvement.

Updated 3 October 2018

The inspection took place on 29 August 2018 with the registered provider being given short notice of the visit to the office, in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. At our previous inspection in August 2017 the service was given an overall rating of ‘Requires Improvement’. Areas highlighted for improvement were around risk assessments and the quality assurance system not always being effective in identifying shortfalls. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in both areas. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Comfort Call Limited’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’.

Comfort Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community in the Rotherham area. The agency currently caters for people whose main needs are those associated with older people, including people living with dementia. People with various other needs, such as sensory impairments and learning disabilities, were also being supported. At the time of our inspection approximately 200 people were receiving personal care from the service.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Most people were happy with the quality of the care the service provided and how it was run. They said care workers met their needs and delivered their care as they wanted it delivering. People told us their privacy and dignity was respected and staff were competent in their work, kind, friendly and helpful.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Concerns, complaints, incidents and accidents were being effectively investigated and monitored. This aimed to reduce risks to people and make sure they received the standard of care they expected.

Recruitment processes were robust, so helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing staff. Staff had undertaken a structured induction, essential training and received regular support, to help develop their knowledge and skills so they could effectively meet people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People had consented to their planned care and staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent and acting in their best interest.

Where possible, people were encouraged to manage their own medication, with some people being supported by relatives. Where assistance was required support was provided by staff who had been trained to carry out this role and whose competency was checked regularly.

People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and where possible they, or their relatives, had been involved in formulating care plans. Care plans provided information and guidance to staff, which assisted them to deliver the care people needed, in the way they preferred.

People were enabled to raise complaints and concerns. The people we spoke with told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns, if they had any. When concerns had been raised the correct procedure had been used to record, investigate and resolve issues.

The system for assessing if staff were following company policies had been improved since our last inspection, so shortfalls were identified in a timely manner and addressed promptly.

The way people were consulted about their satisfaction in the service provided had been improved. People had been given opportunities to share their opinions about their service provision and action had been taken to address areas for improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.