RBK Solution Ltd

The Care Quality Commission (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

Relatives of people receiving a care at home service from this agency and community social care professionals who worked with this provider all told us they were happy with RBK Solutions Ltd. For example, one relative said, “RBK Solutions have been my families care provider for many years. During this time, the care they have provided for my [family member] has been exemplary.” A social care professional added, “The service they [RBK Solution Ltd] provide is reliable and professional.”

However, we found evidence during our inspection of a breach of regulations. The provider will need to make improvements.

The service was not always safe. This was because we were not assured people were suitably protected from harm as risks they might face were not always properly assessed and managed. This meant staff did not always have access to enough sufficiently detailed guidance to keep people safe.

The service was not always effective. Staff had not received enough training and support they needed to ensure they had the right mix of skills and knowledge to deliver people’s care effectively.

The service was not always well-led. The provider had governance and monitoring systems in place, but these were not always operated effectively. This meant the provider failed to notice and/or take appropriate action to address all the issues we found during our inspection as described above.

Staff followed current best practice guidelines regarding the prevention and control of infection, although we have signposted the provider to resources to help them develop an infection prevention and control policy.

People were kept safe from abuse. People received continuity of care from a small group of dedicated staff whose fitness to work in adult social care had been assessed. Medicines were well-organised.

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. Where staff were responsible for preparing people's meals and/or assisting them to eat and drink, people were supported to access food and drink that met their dietary needs and wishes. People were supported to stay healthy and well, and to access relevant community health and social care services as and when required.

People were treated equally and had their human rights and diversity respected, including their cultural and spiritual needs and wishes. Staff treated people with dignity and upheld their right to privacy. People typically described staff as “caring”. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independent living skills and do as much for themselves as they were willing and capable of doing so safely.

People's care plans were person-centred, which helped staff provide them with the individualised care at home they needed. Staff ensured they communicated and shared information with people in a way they could easily understand. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received at home and staff respected their informed choices. Where appropriate, people's end of life wishes and contacts were known and recorded for staff to refer to.

People receiving a care at home service, their relatives and staff were all complimentary about the way the registered manager/owner ran the service, and how approachable they were. The registered manager promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people, their relatives and staff. The provider worked in close partnership with other health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people's packages of care at home.

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

Rating at last inspection

This service was registered with us on 2 July 2020 and this is their first inspection.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified three breaches in relation to how this provider assessed and managed risk, the training and support they provided their staff, and how they operated their oversight and scrutiny systems.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.