We carried out a review of the data available to us about Access Support Services - SADACCA Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Access Support Services - SADACCA Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Access Support Services - SADACCA (Sheffield and District African Caribbean Community Association) Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own home in the community. At time of the inspection the director was managing the service. The service was providing support to two people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found:
At our last inspection we found the director had outsourced all the staffing to another company. The decision to outsource the staffing at the service was not meeting the registered providers 'Statement of Purpose'. At this inspection we found the staff providing the support at the service were now employed by Access Support Services – SADACCA Ltd.
The person we spoke with did not express any concerns or worries about their safety. They were very satisfied with the quality care provided by the service.
We saw the system in place to manage people’s medicines has improved since the last inspection. Medicines were managed safely at the service.
At our last inspection we found people did not have risk assessments in place, to ensure that potential risks to people were managed and minimised. At this inspection we found action had been taken to ensure a risk assessment was undertaken and each person had a care plan in place. However, we saw people’s risk assessments needed to be more person centred. This showed further improvement was required.
There were sufficient staff employed by the service to meet people’s needs. People were supported by staff who knew them well.
Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people.
Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as incidents, concerns and investigations.
The provider completed pre-employment checks for new staff, to check they were suitable to work at the service. However, we saw staff recruitment records required improvement to ensure all the relevant information was stored in each staff member’s file. We shared this information with the director.
We saw the training provided to staff had improved since the last inspection. We saw staff received a range of training and support relevant to their role. Staff told us they felt fully supported and listened to.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Care workers understood the importance of respecting people’s diverse needs and promoting independence.
The person we spoke with told us staff were respectful and treated them in a caring and supportive way.
Since the last inspection the provider’s complaints procedure had been updated. A copy had been given to each person using the service. The service had not received any complaints since the last inspection.
At our last inspection we found the quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service required improvement. At this inspection we found enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.
Rating at last inspection:
At our last inspection in July 2018 the service was rated requires improvement (Supplementary report published 4 October 2018) and we found two breaches of the regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Following our last inspection the registered provider sent us an action plan with details of the improvements they planned to make to meet the requirements of the regulations.
Access Support – SADACCA (Sheffield and District African Caribbean Community Association) Ltd is a small domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care for people living in their own homes in the community. At time of the inspection the service was providing a home care service to three people
The manager had applied to register with the Care Quality Commission. 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.
Since the last inspection, the director had outsourced all the staffing to another company called Watoto Enterprise Ltd. The manager of this company was responsible for the recruitment, employment, training and supervision of the staff. The director told us seven staff from this company were providing care to people using the service. This decision to outsource the staffing at the service was not meeting the registered providers ‘Statement of Purpose’ which states ‘We take great care in recruiting, training and supervising our staff who have a wide range of qualifications’.
People did not have risk assessments in place, to ensure that potential risks to people were managed and minimised. One person who had been using the service for two months did not have risk assessments or a care plan in place. They had computerised care records that staff completed at each visit.
At our last inspection we found concerns about the recruitment of staff. At this inspection there was insufficient evidence to show recruitment processes were being operated effectively because the service did not employ any care staff.
The systems in place to manage medicines required improvement in some areas.
We found the arrangements in place for a person who had monies managed by the service needed to be improved.
The service had a process in place for staff to record accidents and untoward occurrences. However, the service was relying on staff working for another company to report these occurrences.
People we spoke with during the inspection were satisfied with the quality of care that had been provided.
People we spoke with told us they were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, as the service did not employ their own staff, we were unable to check staff fully understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 20015.
Staff training records the registered provider had for the Watoto staff showed they had not completed all the relevant training.
We were unable to determine whether staff were being supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard, because we were unable to access supervision and appraisal records for staff employed by another company.
People had not been given a copy of the complaints procedure. They told us they would contact the local authority or speak with a family member if they wanted to make a complaint.
The system in place for assessing and managing the risks relating to health, safety and welfare of people using the services was ineffective in practice.
The checks completed by the manager and the director to assess and improve the quality of the service provided gave them insufficient oversight.
At this inspection we found two breaches of the Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.
There was a manager at the service who was in the process of registering with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Our inspection was discussed and arranged with the service director and manager two days in advance. This was to ensure we had time to visit and contact people who used the service and speak with the director, manager and staff.
Without exception people who received care and support from the staff at SADACCA said they felt safe and well cared for.
Although there was a policy and procedure for the safe recruitment of staff, people could be put at risk because full and thorough information was not obtained about staff before they were offered a job at the service.
Prior to people being supported with their care an assessment of need was completed. Any risks were also identified. However further information about how the risk could be eliminated or reduced were not recorded in a risk assessment format.
We found people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the registered provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.
There were enough staff employed to make sure all visits were carried out at the agreed time and people told us staff always completed all their tasks before they left.
Although staff felt supported by the director and manager of the service they were not provided with a formalised programme of supervision which would help to ensure their competency was maintained.
The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and the principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to protect the rights of people who may not be able to make important decisions themselves.
Where appropriate staff assisted people to maintain suitable and nutritious food and hydration.
People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff. People told us staff supported them in a sensitive and discreet manner.
People were assessed prior to the them receiving a service which meant staff were confident they were able to meet their needs. Care and support provided to people was person centred and individual to the person.
People receiving support and their relatives were aware of the complaints policy and said they were confident to use this if they had any worries or concerns.
Some documentation which related to the management of the service required improvement. For example, audits of accidents and incidents and spot checks of staff were not recorded in writing to evidence they had been completed.
Everyone we spoke with told us they would recommend this service to a friend or relative.
We found three breaches in the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were breaches in regulation 19: Fit and proper persons employed, regulation 18: Staffing and regulation 17: Good governance.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.