Archived: CRG Homecare Milton Keynes

Updated 25 June 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 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 12 May 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice to ensure that people and staff would be available for us to talk to.

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors.

We checked the information we held about the service and the provider, such as notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. Before the inspection, the 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. In addition, we asked for feedback from the local authority who have a quality monitoring and commissioning role with the service.

During the inspection we spoke with 11 people and one of their relatives by telephone to help us understand their experiences of the service. We also spoke with a quality and compliance officer, a field care supervisor and three members of care staff. In addition to this we spoke with a registered manager from another service operated by the provider, who was supporting the office staff during the inspection.

We reviewed the care records of 10 people who used the service, as well as other records relating to the management of the service. These included staff recruitment and training records, staffing rotas, audits and meeting minutes to corroborate our findings and ensure that people's care was appropriate and met their needs.

Updated 25 June 2016

This inspection took place on 12 May 2016 and was announced.

CRG Homecare Milton Keynes provides personal care to people who live in their own homes, in order for them to maintain their independence. At the time of our inspection they were providing approximately 51 care packages, 45 of which were adult packages and the remaining six were children's.

There was not a registered manager in post when we carried out the inspection; however the provider was in the process of recruiting one. 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.

The service had not taken steps to robustly identify and assess risks to people's health or well-being. Actions to reduce risk levels were not clearly recorded therefore were not available for staff to follow.

People's consent to their care and support had been sought however; the service had not implemented systems to ensure that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were always adhered to if people lacked mental capacity. Appointments and visits from healthcare professionals had not been recorded effectively; therefore this information was not available to staff to ensure they gave appropriate care and support.

People's care was person-centred and sensitive to their specific needs and wishes however; care plans were not always reflective of this and did not always provide staff with person-centred information. People were able to make complaints about the care that they received and were happy to do so if necessary. There were systems in place to ensure complaints were looked into and dealt with appropriately.

There was a lack of clear leadership at the service. Staff had worked hard to minimise the impact of this on people and their care, however; some areas, such as quality assurance processes, had not been fully completed as a result. In addition, there had not been an effective handover when the registered manager had left and interim arrangements for management at the service had not been implemented. There was however a positive and open culture at the service and staff had worked hard to ensure people continued to receive their care, treatment and support.

Staff had knowledge and understanding of abuse and worked to keep people safe from avoidable harm. If abuse or harm was suspected, appropriate procedures were followed to record and report it. Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people's needs were met and staff had been recruited following safe and robust practices with appropriate checks being carried out. Staff were also able to provide people with their medication safely, where necessary.

Staff members were provided with regular training and support to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to perform their roles and meet people's needs. They also provided people with support to ensure they had a healthy and sufficient diet, if this was required.

There were positive and meaningful relationships between people and members of staff. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and spent time getting to know them and build up a professional relationship. People had been involved in planning their care and were consulted about how they wanted to be looked after. They were also provided with information about the service and the care that they could expect from them. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.