Archived: Leicester

Updated 1 September 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 23 and 24 March 2015 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed the information we held about the service, which included one notification. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the registered provider must inform CQC about. We contacted the local authority’s contract monitoring team and asked them for their views about the service but they stated that no contract was in place between them and the service.

During our inspection we went to the office of the agency and spoke to the registered manager, three care staff members. We reviewed the care records of four people that used the service, reviewed the records for four staff and reviewed other records relating to the management of the service. After the office visit we undertook phone calls to five people that used the service and the relative of one person who used the service.

Updated 1 September 2015

We inspected Leicester on 23 and 24 March 2015. The inspection was unannounced which means that we did not tell the provider beforehand that we were coming to inspect the service. Leicester

provides personal care to people in their own homes.

This is the first inspection of the service.

The service has 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who received the service from Leicester said that they felt safe. Staff had received training on how to protect people who used the service from abuse or harm. They demonstrated they were aware of their role and responsibilities in keeping people as safe as possible.

Staff had not received medication training before they supplied medication to people so there was a risk this would not be properly supplied to people.

People who used the service had risk assessments to inform staff of how to manage and minimise risks to their health and welfare, though there was no evidence that one risk had been followed up and dealt with.

People told us that they felt that staff supported them to ensure that their healthcare needs were being met.

People who used the service had their dietary and nutritional needs assessed and planned for. People received a choice of what to eat and drink.

People who used the service and relatives told us they found staff to be caring, compassionate and respectful.

People who used the service were able to participate in discussions and decisions about the care and treatment provided. This also included sharing their views and experience of the service by reviews and questionnaires.

People who used the service had not always been asked to share information that was important to them about how they wished to have their needs met. This included information about social history and lifestyles.

The provider had quality monitoring procedures in place. However further monitoring was needed to ensure that all relevant issues were covered such as staff training and whether calls were always on time.

The registered manager enabled staff to share their views about how the service was provided though staff supervision but had not yet extended this to staff meetings.

The provider supported staff by an induction and on going support, training and development. However, training was not comprehensive to enable staff to be fully equipped to deal with all the needs that people had.

Staffing levels were sufficient to attend all calls though the registered manager was aware more staff were needed to ensure she did not need to attend calls as it took time away from office based duties.

Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure that only suitable staff were employed.

Not all staff had a good understanding of how to assess people's capacity to consent to the care provided to them.

Communication between office staff and people who used to service meant people received a swift response to any queries they had and were always informed if their care calls were going to be late.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and people told us that they were encouraged to be independent.

Quality assurance systems were in place though did not check all essential systems such as staff training.