Archived: Berkeley Home Health Sussex

Berkerley Home Health Sussex is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the Haywards Heath area. At the time of our inspection 24 people were being supported with personal care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. 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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Following our last inspection there have been management changes at Berkerley Home Health Sussex. A new manager started on 20 January 2020.

People told us they felt safe. The process for assessing and monitoring risk had improved since our last inspection. Staff were recruited safely and understood their responsibilities about keeping people safe. There were enough staff to care for people safely, with staff and people using the service telling us current staffing arrangements were sufficient.

Staff were well trained to carry out their roles. They told us they had a good working relationship with the new manager and there had been improvements to the service. Staff felt listened to. They told us they were happy with the level of training, support and supervision available to support them in their roles.

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. All feedback received regarding the staff was positive. People described the staff as kind and caring.

There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Action had been taken in all areas identified as requiring improvement at the previous inspection. Incidents and accidents were recorded so they could be considered and reflected upon to make improvements to the service. Complaints and concerns were addressed and there had been a significant improvement in communication within the service. People had confidence in the staff and staff spoke highly of the new manager.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 28 February 2019). At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 28 November and 17 December 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection of this service since it was registered on 29 November 2017.

Not everyone using this service receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, which means help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where people receive personal care we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service supported 39 people with their personal care needs.

The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. The registered manager left the service in November 2018, and the service was undergoing changes because of merging with another Berkeley Home Health branch. The service was being run by the business manager who was in the process of undergoing registration with the CQC. We have referred to this person as the acting manager throughout this report. The acting manager was being supported by the regional director.

Risks to people were considered, but not always consistently assessed. Care plans were not always consistent and up to date. People did not always receive care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. People did not feel their concerns were always responded to. People said they did not always receive care at their preferred times. Quality monitoring had identified some areas that required improvement that we found on inspection but not all.

We have made a recommendation that the provider develops quality monitoring processes further to ensure they are embedded. We have made a recommendation that the provider engage with people to gather feedback with respect to timeliness of their care visits.

People and staff told us that under new management improvements to the service were being made. Systems and processes to ensure management oversight of the service and monitor quality had identified some of the issues we found on inspection. The acting manager, supported by the regional director, had a comprehensive improvement plan in place. We did not find these inconsistences had impacted on people’s safety, but these improvements needed more time to be embedded and sustained.

People told us they felt safe. One person told us, “My carers are good, I am lucky to have them.” People were supported to receive their medicines safely by staff that were trained in administering medicines. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

People were protected from avoidable harm. There was a safeguarding policy and staff received training. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and knew what action to take to keep people safe.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. Staff understood best interest decision making where people lacked capacity in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff sought people’s consent before giving personal care.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet the needs of people. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their duties. A relative told us, “Yes, they do seem to have good training.” People were supported to maintain their health and had assistance to access health care services when they needed to.

People received kind and compassionate care. People told us the staff were kind and caring and there were positive interactions between people and the staff caring for them. One person said, “They are very kind, they really do care.”

Staff said they enjoyed working for the service and felt supported by the acting manager. The service was going through a period of change, areas for improvement had been identified by the management team, and action was being taken to address them. The acting manager had an improvement plan to ensure people who used the service and staff felt supported through a period of transition. This included listening to feedback to ensure people, relatives and staff were engaged and involved in the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.