29 May 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection was carried out on the 29 May 2015. Watershed Care Services Limited also known as Regus is a Domiciliary Care Service providing personal care for people in their own homes most of whom are older people. The service is in its infancy and currently provides care to 11 people. The registered provider is Watershed Care Services Limited.
On the day of our visit there was 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 is also the provider for the service.
Services that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the Care Quality Commission, (the CQC), of important events that happen in the service. The provider of the service had not informed the CQC of three events which related to safeguarding concerns that the Local Authority raised which have now been resolved. The provider has updated us on the outcome of the safeguarding’s and what steps have been taken to reduce the risk of this happening again.
There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to support the people who used the service.
People and their relatives told us they were supported by regular staff who knew their needs and preferences well.
Systems were in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of procedures to follow to safeguard people from abuse and people said they felt safe. One person said “I feel very safe from abuse; they (staff) are all very nice.”
People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and were kept informed. Relatives we spoke with told us they were always consulted and felt involved. Care files had details of people’s GPs so staff could contact them if they had a health concern. Care plans were written in a personalised way based on the needs of the person concerned. One persons said “They (staff) understand my needs, they ask me what I need.” Relatives we spoke also felt very involved in the care. One said “I and (my family member) are involved with everything, they help (my family member) to be as independent as they can be.”
People were offered support in a way that upheld their dignity and promoted their independence. Staff said they would close doors and curtains and make sure the person was covered when providing personal care.
People who received support with meals said that they were supported to have food and drink of their choice.
People’s rights were being upheld as required by the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This is a law that provides a framework to protect people who do not have mental capacity to give their consent or make certain decisions for themselves. Staff were aware of their responsibilities through appropriate training in regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were cared for by kind, respectful staff. People told us they looked forward to staff coming to support them. One person said “Staff are brilliant, they are very, very good carers.” One relative said “Staff treat (the family member) with respect, I would recommend the service, they have a giggle and a chat with (the family member).
Medicines were safely administered and people who used the service received their medicines in the way that had been prescribed for them. Each care file had clear instructions to care staff stating whether the person was to be administered medication as part of the care plan. One member of staff said “I would never give medicine to someone if I didn’t know what it was.”
Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. There were regular and detailed care plan reviews undertaken by the provider which involved all interested parties which were signed and agreed by the person or the appropriate representative.
A number of audits were routinely undertaken, these included a quality audit review of care files, review of handover sheets, accident and incidents and medication records. This helped the provider to make improvements where necessary.