Archived: Creative Care and Support

Updated 16 November 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 25 October 2016.

The registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service. We looked at previous inspection reports and notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events, which the registered provider is required to tell us about by law.

Prior to our inspection we contacted the local authority and other health professionals to obtain their views of the service. Information received from them was reviewed and used to assist with our inspection.

The inspection team was made up of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The area of expertise for the expert by experience was in supporting people to use domiciliary care agencies.

On 4, 5, 6 October 2016 we spoke with five people who received a service from Creative Care and Support and ten relatives.

On 12 October we spoke with seven members of staff including, care coordinators, a senior member of care staff and other care and support staff.

On the 13 October 2016 we visited three people who used the service at their home to ask their opinions of the service and to check their care files.

On 25 October 2016 we visited the agency office and spoke with the registered manager and business manager.

We also reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the domiciliary care agency was managed. These included care records for six people, including their medicine administration record (MAR’s) and other records relating to the management of the domiciliary care agency. These included five staff training, support and employment records, quality assurance audits and findings from questionnaires that the provider had sent to people.

Updated 16 November 2016

The inspection took place on 25 October 2016, and was an announced inspection. Prior to this we visited and spoke with people in their homes. We spoke over the telephone with people who used the service. We also contacted and spoke with Creative Care and Support care staff.

The registered manager of the service was given 24 hours’ notice of the inspection, because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that the registered manager and other staff would be present to talk with. We also wanted the service to make initial contact with some people, who we had identified we would like to visit, to ask them if we could visit them in their own homes.

Creative Care and Support is registered to provide personal care. Support is provided to younger adults and older people living in their own homes. Support can range from personal practical care or support from a short visit to a 24 hour package. The agency office has recently moved and is now in the Priory Campus Building in the area of Lundwood close to transport links.

Our last inspection at Creative Care and Support took place on 28 April 2014. The service was found to be meeting the requirements of the regulations we inspected at that time.

There was a manager at the service who was registered 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.

We received lots of positive feedback about the service. The majority of people spoken with told us they were satisfied with the service they were provided with.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke highly about the staff, particularly the care staff.

The main issues for some people who used the service and their relatives were the timing of visits varying. There had been three recent missed visits. Records checked showed these were the first missed visits in the last six months. The business manager had met the family of the person who had experienced the missed visits, apologised and put in systems to prevent a reoccurrence.

Some people who used the service felt communication between the office staff and themselves needed improvement. We spoke with the registered manager and business manager present on inspection with regard to communication. They accepted that communication was a vital component of the service and they were striving to improve this part of the service.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse. They understood how to protect people from avoidable harm and how to report their concerns.

People's care plans contained up to date information about their care and support including risk assessments. These were regularly reviewed and updated when the person's needs changed.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. There were systems in place to ensure care staff were competent in the administering of medicines.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and we saw the registered provider and registered manager followed and worked within the principles of the Act.

Staff received regular training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Individual staff supervision was less frequent and meetings were not always recorded. The registered manager and business manager were looking at the provider’s supervision policy so the type of support staff received was more varied and always recorded.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns. Where people had expressed concerns appropriate action had been taken.

The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included satisfaction surveys, spot checks and care reviews. We found the majority of people were satisfied with the service they received.