Archived: Continued Care from Oakville Ltd

Updated 10 January 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 was planned to check whether the provider is 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.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection site visit started on 29 October 2018 and ended on 7 November 2018. We visited the office location on 29 October and 2 November 2018 to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

This inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included notifications the provider is obliged to send to us and we used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. 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

We reviewed a range of documents related to people’s care and the management of the service, including five people’s care plans, care notes, quality audits, meeting minutes and six staff personnel files.

We spoke with six people who use the service by telephone and conducted a visit to one person’s home. We spoke with seven staff, including the registered manager, deputy manager, senior care staff and care staff. We also spoke with one healthcare professional who worked closely with the service and a representative from a local charity which also worked with the service.

Updated 10 January 2019

This inspection took place on 29 October, 2 and 7 November 2018 and was announced. At our last inspection in November 2015 we found the service was good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults and children. There were 38 people using the service at the time of the inspection.

Not everyone using Continued Care from Oakville Limited receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 service was led by a registered manager who was an excellent role model to staff and who had received accreditation and recognition for maintaining and demonstrating innovative practice and quality care delivery. The registered manager had been asked to contribute to a parliamentary review for adult social care, which is a document that showcases examples of sector-leading practice, and had won a national award recognising high standards of practice.

Staff were empowered to contribute positively to the development of the service. Their ideas were listened to and where they could benefit people and the quality of care they were implemented. These ranged from staff incentives to Zumba classes for people and their relatives to improve their mobility and social activities.

Care plans were written in partnership with people according to their aims and personal goals, and included high quality and detailed information on people’s preferences and how they wanted their needs to be met. The service used technology creatively to ensure they received up to date information on changes to people’s needs, and people could also communicate directly with the service’s electronic systems to ensure any key messages were instantly taken on board.

People were positive about staff attitude and care, and we saw examples where staff had gone ‘above and beyond’ their roles to make meaningful improvements to people’s lives. The service provided its own staff to ensure a day centre, ran by a charity for people living with dementia, could run safely and their engagement was vital in the maintenance of this service which allowed people to participate in their community and provide respite for their relatives.

People’s feedback was sought in creative and innovative ways and used to improve aspects of the service. For example, improvements to the interview process for staff took into account suggestions made by a person using the service. The service donated to charity for every survey response received.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The service monitored staff electronically to ensure punctuality. Rotas were flexible and could be changed to ensure everyone’s needs were met. Staff were recruited safely.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines administration records were audited regularly. Staff received training in medicines safety and had their competency assessed by senior staff before administering medicines on their own. Risks to people were assessed appropriately and contained detailed information. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to describe how they would protect people from harm.

People told us staff were trained and competent to meet their needs. Staff received a comprehensive induction and training programme. Staff told us they felt well supported through observations, supervisions and appraisals.

People’s health and wellbeing was monitored effectively. A health professional we spoke with gave positive feedback about the service. The service worked in partnership with others to ensure people’s health and wellbeing. People were appropriately assessed before using the service. Where necessary their nutritional intake was monitored, and people’s dietary preferences were followed and well documented.

There was a complaints process in place, people knew how to raise complaints and we found people’s concerns were reported and acted upon appropriately.

The service’s quality monitoring arrangements were used to drive improvement. The service conducted a regular programme of audit. The service had also been audited and accredited by external agencies to ensure that it was effectively managed.