Background to this inspection
Updated
18 December 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.
This was a targeted inspection to check on specific concerns we had about safeguarding and management. The inspection took place during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
The service had a manager who applying to register with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider will be legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service a short period of notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the provider or manager would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection activity started on 24th November 2020 and ended on 1st December 2020. We visited the office location on 24th November 2020.
What we did before the inspection
Before the inspection we reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We reviewed CQC notifications. Notifications describe events that happen in the service that the provider is legally required to tell us about.
We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
During the inspection
We spoke with seven people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We received feedback from three professionals who had contact with the service. We spoke with seven members of staff, including the registered manager. Their comments have been incorporated into this report.
We reviewed a range of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures and audits.
We considered all this information to help us to make a judgement about the service.
Updated
18 December 2020
This inspection took place between 11 and 14 September 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the start of our inspection because we wanted key people to be available. Inspection site visit activity started on the 11 September 2018 and completed the following day. Telephone calls to people who used the service were made on the four days, 11 to 14 September 2018.
There was a registered manager in post and they were available when this inspection took place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The last inspection of the service was completed in February 2016 and we rated the service overall as Good. There were no breaches of the regulations.
In April 2018 the service became one of four preferred domiciliary care providers for South Gloucestershire Council. The geographical area covered by this service include Kingswood, Downend, Emersons Green, Pucklechurch, Wick, Marshfield, Hanham, Longwell Green, Cadbury Heath, Oldland Common and Barrs Court. The service has two functions. To provide a six-week reablement service to help people regain as much independence as possible and a long-term community care service.
People were safe. Staff completed safeguarding adults and moving and handling training to ensure they maintained people’s safety. Risk assessments were completed as part of the care planning process. Where risks were identified there were plans in place to reduce or eliminate the risk. Safe staff recruitment procedures were followed to ensure people were not looked after by unsuitable staff. There was a staff recruitment drive in place to ensure there were sufficient numbers of staff to fulfil their commitments and in the meantime care calls were sub-contracted to agency workers. Medicines were managed safely.
The service was effective. Staff received training to enable them to carry out their jobs well. New staff completed an induction training programme at the start of their employment and any new-to-care staff completed the Care Certificate. There was a mandatory training programme for all staff to complete to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people correctly.
People’s care and support needs were assessed and a support plan devised detailing how the service would support them. For those people who were supported by the reablement team, their goals were identified and their care plan set out how the staff would help them regain as much independence as possible. People were provided with assistance to eat and drink well where this had been identified as a care need. The staff, particularly the reablement workers, worked with other health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained.
People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and were involved in making decisions and making their own choices about their care and support. People were asked to consent before care and support was delivered. The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The service was caring. People were treated with kindness and were listened to. The service had come through a period of upheaval and people had not liked the lack of continuity with the staff who covered their care calls. There was an acknowledgement that things were settling down and the staff were now able to form good working relationships with the people they were looking after.
The service was responsive. Care plans and the service delivery arrangements were reviewed after six weeks and then annually or more often if needed. Care arrangments were amended as required. People were provided with information about the service and details about how to raise any concerns they may have. People were encouraged to provide feedback about the service they received and action was taken where necessary.
The service was well led. The staff team was led by a registered manager. The two staff teams were provided with good leadership and management. Staff meetings ensured they were kept up to date with changes and developments in the service. There was a regular programme of audits in place, which ensured that the quality and safety of the service was monitored.