The inspection took place on 11 and 23 December 2015 and was announced. The service was last inspected on 21 and 28 May 2014 and met the regulations we inspected against at that time.Blue Ribbon Community Care is a domiciliary care service that is registered with the Care Quality Commission for the regulated activity of personal care. The service provides care and support to people in their own homes in the Sunderland area. At the time of our inspection 44 people were using the service.
The service had a registered manager. 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 registered provider had breached regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This was because medicines records did not accurately account for individual medicines given to people. We found unaccounted for gaps in medicines administration records (MARs) for three out of four people whose records we checked. Daily logs did not provide a full explanation about people’s medicines. Where people had been assessed as requiring staff to administer their medicines, records confirmed staff did not always supervise the administration of medicines. Medicines audits were inconsistent and did not always evidence that action had been taken to investigate gaps in records.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The registered provider planned to make improvements to the management of medicines. However it was too early to assess how effective these improvements would be.
People were happy with their care. They were cared for by attentive staff who listened to them and knew their needs well. One person said their care was, “Excellent, it has been really good.” Another person said their care was, “Brilliant.” A third person said, “Fantastic, couldn’t be anything better. They are always there for you.” Another person commented, “Staff know my needs well. When a new girl started they read my care plan.” People said staff treated them with dignity and respect. One person said staff were, “Very respectful.” Another person said, “I am treated very well. There is not a thing bad about each and every one of them.”
People told us they felt safe. One person said, “Yes I feel safe, no problem.” New people to the service were assessed to help protect them from any potential risks.
Staff had access to information about safeguarding. They had a good understanding about safeguarding alerts and whistle blowing, including how to report concerns. One staff member said, “I would go and tell somebody at the office.” Another staff member said, “I would have no concerns using it [whistle blowing procedure]. The manager would look into it [a concern] straightaway. It wouldn’t be just left.”
People were supported by a consistent staff team. One person said, “I see the same person 99% of the time.” They went on to say, “Staff stayed for the full-time and are on time.” New staff had been checked to confirm they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.
The registered provider had up to date procedures to deal with emergency situations. Incidents and accidents had been investigated and action taken to help prevent a repeat of the incident.
Staff said they were well supported and trained to carry out their caring role. One staff member said, “I am really, really well supported.” Another staff member said, “I have had all my training.” One person also described staff as, “Very well trained.” New staff members had completed an induction programme, including shadowing more experienced staff.
Staff had a good understanding of MCA and knew how support people with making day to day choices and decisions.
People were supported to meet their nutritional needs, including where people required special diets. One person said, “Staff ask me what I want to eat.”
Staff had access to information to help them understand people’s care needs. This included information about people’s needs, their level of care and any preferences they had. People had their needs assessed and personalised care plans developed. People told us they had seen their care plans. One person said their care plan was, “Accurate in terms of what I wanted, word for word. Carers follow the plan.”
People knew how to complain if they were unhappy with their care. People we spoke with had not raised any complaints with the registered provider. One person said, “I have not made any complaints at all.” The registered provider kept a log of all complaints and compliments they received. Three complaints received from one complainant during 2015 had been investigated and the outcome recorded.
We received positive feedback about the registered manager. One person said, “Mark, I could talk to him. He is very helpful that way. If I have any problems I give him a ring.”
There were opportunities for staff members to give their views about the service, through attending team meetings. One staff member said, “Team meetings are useful because we can have a chat about things and discuss changes together.”
The registered provider carried out checks of the quality of people’s care. This included questionnaires, ‘service user reviews’ and unannounced spot checks. Positive feedback had been received following the most recent consultation with people using the service. People had been involved in discussing their care during ‘service user reviews.’ Regular unannounced spot checks were carried out to ensure staff were following people’s care plans. The registered provider had clear plans for developing the service in the future.