Taylor Care Norfolk

Updated 16 January 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. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. On the first day we visited the registered office and on a second day we spoke with people using the service and some relatives of the people being supported.

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 registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave a short period notice of the inspection because we wanted to ensure that the office could arrange for care staff to be free to speak with us

What we did before the inspection

In planning the inspection, we took in to account any information we already held about this service which included any notifications which are important events the service are required to tell us about.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return, prior to this inspection as this was a newly registered service so we asked the service for information about their quality assurance systems. A PIR is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We take this information into account when we inspect the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection-

We spoke with the registered manager, and office staff including two staff responsible for human resources, allocations and the managing director. We spoke with five care staff and looked at records associated with the management of the service including, records, recruitment, audits and care plans.

After the inspection –

We spoke with four relatives and ten people using the service. We sought confirmation from the local authority who did not have any concerns. We also contacted health care professionals and commissioners and received excellent feedback.

Updated 16 January 2020

About the service

Taylor Care DCA provides personal care for people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection there were 72 people using the service

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

People reported having a good experience of care and support from the agency which was well delivered consistently over time. Support was provided within a given timeframe and people kept informed of calls if they were running late. People described the service as’ reliable and dependable.’

Despite really positive feedback we found the planning of the service did not always take into account people's individual preferences. Some people told us there were lots of changes as to who delivered their care. Some people did not mind but others said they would prefer continuity to help them establish clear relationships and have carers who could anticipate their needs. We have made a recommendation about this.

Person centred care plans were in place and helped carers understand people’s needs and what was important to them in terms of their support. We found risk assessments however did not always contain enough information and specific guidance around people’s health care needs was not always in place. The provider agreed to address this and already had an action plan in place.

Electronic monitoring systems helped ensure calls were scheduled and delivered according to people’s needs and carers recorded contemporaneously how people’s needs had been met.

Medicines were administered by staff who received good training and had their competency assessed. Auditing processes were robust and had identified medicine recording errors. The service had completed an analysis of this and had a process in place to address this, and support staff to improve their practice.

Recruitment processes for new staff were adequate and staff were supported in their employment through induction and ongoing training. The service had a robust training programme.

Staff received supervision, appraisal and direct observations of practice but the latter had only recently been firmly established, and this would help to identify issues relating to staff performance.

Data was collated in relation to complaints/ compliments and there was a record of incidents and safeguarding concerns. Staff knew to report any concerns and changes to people’s needs immediately.

People said the service was well delivered and said they were regularly asked for their feedback.

The service had quality assurance systems which were being further developed. A recent audit had been completed and highlighted several issues which could be improved upon and actions plans had been developed. Monthly audits had not been clearly established but going

forward these had been implemented.

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.

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

Rating at last inspection (and update)

This was the first inspection since the provider changed their location and legal entity.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection according to our methodology.