Archived: HF Trust - Bradford DCA

Updated 5 August 2017

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.

The inspection started on 4 April 2017 with a visit to the provider’s offices in Bradford. The inspection was announced at short notice because it is a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure the registered manager would be available.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

During the office visit we spoke with the registered manager, and a ‘cluster’ manager and looked at a variety of records which included three people’s care records, two staff files, training records and records relating to the management of the service such as meeting notes, audits and surveys.

Following the office visit we spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. We were unable to speak with any other staff employed by the service although we tried to make contact by telephone and email. Although the organisation carried out a staff survey it was not location specific and therefore we were unable to obtain staff feedback on this particular service.

Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications sent by the registered manager. We contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams to ask for their views about the service.

The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form which gives the provider the opportunity to tell us about their service and any planned improvements. We took this information into account when reaching our judgements.

Updated 5 August 2017

The inspection was announced and started on 4 April 2017 with a visit to the provider’s offices. Following the visit we gathered additional information by means of telephone interviews with relatives of people who used the service. We also spent time trying to contact staff by telephone and email.

HF Trust – Bradford DCA provides support to people of varying ages with learning disabilities, both in their own homes and in the community. This includes support with shopping, personal care, eating and drinking and emotional support. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting 17 people with personal care.

The last inspection report was published in November 2014. At that time the provider was meeting all the regulations and we rated the service as good in all areas.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection we found the service was very responsive to people’s needs. They had done a lot of work supporting young people and their families with the transition to adult services. The feedback from relatives involved in this process was very positive. The overwhelming view was that the service had played a vital role in supporting people to achieve a smooth transition.

During the inspection we saw several examples of ways in which the service ensured people received personalised care and support. For example, we saw different means of communication had been developed in response to individual needs. Relatives told us they were listened to and where necessary changes were made to improve the experiences of the person being supported.

We saw the culture of providing person centred support was reflected in day to day working practices. For example, people’s support plans were written to help staff understand situations from the perspective of the person being supported.

We found examples of the service going over and above what was expected of them. For example, by involving and working with other agencies to support relatives of people being supported.

We saw people were supported to make decisions and take part in events and activities which enhanced their lives. People were supported to develop friendships.

People were supported to talk about any concerns or complaints and their concerns were taken seriously and dealt with. Information about the complaints procedure was given to people supported by the service in an easy read format.

There were safeguarding procedures in place to help protect people from abuse. Staff received training on safeguarding, assessing risk and capacity during their induction. People’s rights were promoted and protected and the service was working in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. People were protected from discrimination and individual needs relating to culture, religion and gender were identified and met.

The provider had robust recruitment procedures which helped to make sure only suitable staff were employed. We saw the provider had started to involve people who used the service in the selection and recruitment of staff.

There were enough staff employed to deliver the agreed packages of care. Staff received training on safe working practices and on the specific needs of people being supported. Staff received on-going support through one to one supervisions and appraisals.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were identified and managed. When people were supported with their medicines this was done safely.

When people were supported with eating and drinking this was done safely and people’s likes and dislikes were catered for.

People were supported to access health care services. In one case we saw a support worker had gone to exceptional lengths to support a person with a screening procedure.

All the feedback we received and saw about the service showed people felt respected and valued by staff. People were treated with kindness and compassion. People were supported to be actively involved in the way their support and care was planned and delivered. The service placed a great emphasis on finding the right staff to support people. This went beyond ensuring staff had the right skill set and took account of compatible personality traits and interests.

We found the management team to be open, transparent and committed to continually improving the experiences of people who used the service. This was consistent with feedback from people who used the service and other stakeholders.

We found the service was continually seeking feedback from people who used the service and others and this information was used to develop and improve the service.

There were effective systems and processes in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of the services being provided.