Careline The Agency for Carestaff

Updated 15 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 10 and 11 January 2018. This was a comprehensive announced inspection. The provider was given 24hrs notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that senior staff would be available in the office to assist with the inspection. The inspection was completed by one inspector over two days on site, and a subsequent day completing telephone interviews.

Prior to the inspection the local authority care commissioners were contacted to obtain feedback from them in relation to the service. We referred to previous inspection reports, local authority reports and notifications. Notifications are sent to the Care Quality Commission by the provider to advise us of any significant events related to the service. As part of the inspection process we also look at the 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. We had received the PIR and used this to help inform our inspection plan.

During the inspection we spoke with five members of staff, including three care support workers, one care manager and the registered manager. We called a further four staff who were unable to speak with us. We spoke with five people and / or their families who are supported by the DCA.

Care Plans, health records, additional documentation relevant to support systems were seen for four people. In addition a sample of records relating to the management of the service, for example staff records, complaints, quality assurance assessments and audits were viewed. Staff recruitment and supervision records for six of the regular staff team were looked at.

Updated 15 March 2018

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 January 2018. This was an announced inspection as Careline the Agency for Care Staff is a Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) and we needed to be sure someone would be at the office. A DCA is a provision that offers specific hours of care and support to a person within their own home. The DCA provided the regulated activity of personal care to people older adults and young people. Some of the people had physical disabilities, whilst others had health ailments that meant they required support with personal care.

At the time of the inspection a registered manager was in post. 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 remained safe. Sufficient staff were employed to manage people’s needs, and enable them to engage in activities of their choice, through risk management. Staff were able to describe how to safeguard people from abuse and were aware of the protocols to follow. Staff further showed no hesitation to whistle-blow if the need arose. Where staff were involved in medicine management this were managed safely. Staff were competency checked annually and audits were completed monthly to ensure people were kept safe. If medicines errors were found during audits an investigation was completed and the necessary steps taken.

The service remained effective. Support was delivered by a highly experienced and knowledgeable staff team, who were able to respond to people’s changing needs, through risk management. Staff were supervised and supported by the management team and aimed at delivering support in the most appropriate way. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. This was evidenced with staff encouraging people to go on holidays and arranging this for people.

The service remained caring. Staff were reported to be polite, respectful and ensured they maintained people’s dignity whilst supporting them. They evidenced open communication with people and worked on motivating them to increase and achieve their independence.

The service remained responsive. Care plans whilst initially contained minimal information, requesting staff to seek direction from the person or the appropriate family member; were rewritten to contain detailed information on how to deliver the care. The service took necessary action to prevent and minimise the potential for social isolation. Activities were arranged and co-ordinated by the service to increase community engagement, and increase well-being. People and staff were protected from discrimination. Systems were employed by the service to monitor and investigate complaints.

The service had developed methods of governance that provided evaluation of practice. However, it was recognised that by not retaining old audits the service was unable to illustrate improvement over time. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed annually with an action plan being generated, and actioned, in addition to quarterly feedback sought for each staff member. People, relatives and stakeholders were asked for feedback on how to improve and make changes to the service. We found evidence of compliments and complaints that illustrated transparency in management.