Carrianne Care

Updated 6 November 2019

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 conducted by one inspector.

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 the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection. We also needed time for people to be able to give consent for us to phone them.

Inspection activity started on 29 August 2019 and ended on 2 September 2019. We visited the office location on 2 September 2019.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service, two relatives and three professionals about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager, care coordinator and two care workers.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We spoke to another health and social care professional about their experience of the service.

Updated 6 November 2019

About the service

Creative Media Centre is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to older people living in their own homes. At the time of inspection, 11 people were receiving a service. Some of these people lived with dementia.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

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

People’s care documentation did not consistently reflect their current support needs, preferences or what they could do independently. Although staff knew people well, identified risks had not been recorded fully with actions staff should take to mitigate them. There was not always oversight of staff records such as interview notes or spot checks. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

People told us they felt safe being supported by staff from Creative Media Centre. One person said, “I feel very comfortable having them in my home.” People and their relatives told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and they never experienced any late or missed calls. One person said, “They are on time and do exactly what I need.” People saw the same staff every week which meant they knew and trusted them. Staff told us that working with the same people meant they got to know them and risks to their wellbeing.

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.

People told us that their health and social needs were consistently met, and staff provided support to medical appointments if it was needed. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were also met. Staff spoke positively about their induction into the service and told us they were provided with regular supervision by a manager. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.

People’s privacy, dignity and independence was always promoted and encouraged. People spoke very highly about the caring nature of staff. One person said, “They are unique you know and so very nice.” Another said, “My carer is like a friend to me. I always enjoy myself when I'm with them." Relatives and professionals were also complimentary about staff. One relative said, “I honestly think they are the best care agency in the area. Every single carer is excellent. I can't speak highly enough about them.”

Staff knew people, their support needs and communication preferences well. They involved them in activities that were tailored to their interests. People and their relatives told us they had never had any reason to complain but knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. People were supported in a kind and compassionate way when they were at the end of their lives.

Although we identified improvements were needed to records, everyone we spoke to was complimentary about the registered manager and care coordinator. Staff felt well supported in their roles and that everyone worked together as a team. One staff member said, “The registered manager is always there. The care coordinator is marvellous too. They are both very supportive.” Feedback had been sought from people, staff and relatives to check they were happy with the service. The management team listened to our feedback and sought to improve immediately.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 1 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.