A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer the five key questions we always ask: ' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.
During our inspection we spoke with three people who received a service, and four staff members. The registered manager was on leave at the time of our inspection, but another manager from the provider's organisation was present. We also received further information from the provider on 26 August 2014.
Is the service safe?
People told us that they felt safe with the staff who provided their care. Staff had undertaken training relating to safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse. They demonstrated that they would report any concerns appropriately.
When we reviewed people's care records we found that that although they all contained risk assessments, some areas of risk had not been identified or assessed by the provider. This meant there was a risk that people were not safe because risks might not have been identified.
Is the service effective?
We spoke with three people who received care from this service. They were all complimentary about the care they received and said that it met their needs. One person told us, 'Staff listen to me and do things exactly as I want.' Another person told us, 'I'd be lost without them.'
Is the service caring?
People told us that the staff providing the service to them were caring. One person said that the staff were 'very good, absolutely perfect. I can't say anything against them. If I want help, they are there.' People told us that staff did ask them about the care they needed. They said staff listened to them and acted on their preferences.
Is the service responsive?
People that we spoke with told us that their requests had been accommodated where they had requested changes to the time, or the way, their care was provided. However, because people's needs and the care provided to them were not regularly reviewed there was a risk that the provider would not respond appropriately to people's changing needs.
Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. However, where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider had not checked they were acting in accordance with legal requirements before providing care.
Is the service well-led?
People receiving a service told us that staff regularly checked that they were satisfied with the service provided to them. Senior staff told us that this was an informal process and no records were kept or analysis made. In addition, we found that there was no evidence of analysis of complaints received or incidents that occurred.
Care workers told us they felt supported by senior staff and had received training in relevant topics. However, we found that checks of night staff and team leaders' work had not taken place.
Although the provider had quality assurance policies in place, which included the use of various audits, these were not being followed. We found little information had been gathered in relation to the standard of the service provided since the provider registered in November 2013. We noted that a quality audit had been conducted by the provider's representative on 30 July 2014 and that the team leaders had taken notes of, and were addressing, some of the areas for improvement. However, at the time of the inspection on 19 August 2014, the staff at the service had not received a copy of the report. We were provided with a copy of the report a week after our inspection. This showed that there were 19 areas for improvement documented.
A registered manager was in post at the service. However, we noted that they spent less than one day each week at the service because they managed three other, similar, services.
We found that the provider was not compliant with the regulations in four of the six areas we assessed. We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.