Archived: HFSS Supporting People in Scarborough

Updated 2 July 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 5 March 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and staff are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. Prior to the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) which we read. 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. We had also sent questionnaires to six people who used the service (50 % returned), six staff (33.3% returned) and 11 community professionals (18.2% returned) asking them for their views about the service. We reviewed the notifications we had received for this service.

During the inspection we interviewed two members of staff and the director of the company and spoke with one relative of a person who used the service. We looked at the care and support plans of three people. We also looked at two staff recruitment files and their training records. We looked at other records associated with running this service such as policies and procedures, accidents and incidents, staff meeting minutes and questionnaires sent out by the service. We spoke to the local authority contracting and quality assurance team to get their views about the service.

Updated 2 July 2015

This inspection took place on 5 March 2015 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection. This service had not had a comprehensive inspection previously.

HFSS Supporting People in Scarborough is a domiciliary care service providing eight people with care in their own homes. The service was registered to provide care to children, younger and older adults who may have a learning disability, autism, physical or mental health issues, dementia, people with eating disorders or who misuse drugs and alcohol and those with sensory impairment.

There was a registered manager but they had recently stopped working for the service and we were told would be applying to have their registration with CQC cancelled. 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.

We saw that staff had received training in safeguarding adults and children. Staff were able to confirm that they had attended the training and could tell us what they would do if they witnessed any abuse of a person they were caring for.

Medicines were managed safely by staff who were trained and had competency checks carried out by the agency. Any accident and incidents were recorded appropriately.

Staff had been recruited safely and there were sufficient staff identified on rotas to meet people’s needs. Staff worked in small teams and covered each other where possible so that routines were maintained for people who used the service.

People were provided with care by staff that were well trained in subjects that were relevant to peoples day to day care such as medicines training and moving and handling of people.

Where risks had been identified there were clear management plans in place for staff to follow.

Staff were supported by senior staff from the agency and received regular supervision. They attended staff meetings and were encouraged to share ideas and practice.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005.We could see that consent had been sought from people who used the service and from relatives for those people who may lack capacity.

People who used the service told us that they would know how to complain about the agency. However, they did say that they would not know who to contact within the service.

Senior staff regularly visited people’s homes to check that the service was working well but no formal surveys had been completed for people who use the service. Staff had completed a survey with positive responses.