Archived: Allied Healthcare Sawston

Is the service caring?

People told us that they received consistent and respectful support from care staff and felt able to make choices and changes when required. Care staff told us that they were well supported and supervised by the manager and office based staff so that they could provide safe care and support to people.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's personal care and support needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they wanted their care to be provided. People we spoke with told us that they could make changes to their support and had been involved in reviews. It was noted that changes to documentation were made to accurately reflect the support being provided by care staff.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual needs were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from the risk of abuse. The provider was taking appropriate action to ensure that all carers were kept up to date with safeguarding training.

Is the service effective?

We found that carers were knowledgeable about people's individual care and support needs. People using the service that we spoke with, and their relatives, confirmed that care staff provided consistent support both in their own home and when accessing the community. The manager confirmed that measures were in place to ensure that reviews of care and support documentation were in place to meet people's assessed needs.

Is the service well led?

Staff that we spoke with told us that they felt well supported by the manager and office based staff and felt there was regular training so that they could safely provide care and support. People that we spoke with told us that they felt they were listened to and support was consistently and safely provided. Quality assurance systems were in place to regular audit the care and services it provided. Surveys were carried out to gather opinions from people using the service, relatives and staff to ensure that ongoing improvements could be made.

We visited and spoke with four people who use the service receiving care. We spoke with 11 other people on the phone. Two relatives also commented about the quality of service. One person told us, 'I trust the carer to look after my husband, she has to stay over and I wouldn't allow someone I didn't trust to be in my house.' Another person said, 'They encourage me to do as much as possible for myself.'

We checked the medication in the people's homes we visited and found that the policy and procedure were followed. This ensured that people received their medication as prescribed and in a safe way.

Most people felt that staff were well trained and used their knowledge to deliver safe care for people. Staff spoken with confirmed that they received regular training and this was confirmed in the training records we saw. People we spoke with confirmed that the provider regularly checked their satisfaction with the quality of service.

We checked records, care plans, training and audits and both electronic and the hard copies, and all were up to date.

Although people using the service expressed satisfaction with their support, care planning documentation needed improvement as it lacked detail regarding the care and support that was to be provided at each visit. Guidelines for staff were not in sufficient detail to ensure that care was being provided to meet peoples' individual preferences.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people from harm and information regarding how to contact the local authority safeguarding team had been made readily available to staff and people using the agency.

There were thorough recruitment procedures in place to ensure that only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.

The agency had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service that was provided to people.