Archived: Nautilus Care

Updated 27 April 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 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 15 January 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of this inspection because the service is small and we needed to be sure they would be in.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

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. Before our inspection, we reviewed the information in the PIR along with information we held about the service, which included notifications they had sent us. We wrote to five health and social care professionals to ask about their experiences of the service. Two of them responded to us and none of them raised any concerns to us.

During the visit we spoke with five people who used the service and two of their relative’s. One relative had also completed a questionnaire that we sent them prior to this inspection. We spoke with two care staff, and two members of the management team. Nine care staff had also completed a questionnaire that we had sent them prior to this inspection.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included the care plans for three people, the training and induction records for three members of staff, medication records for three people and quality assurance audits that the management team had completed.

Updated 27 April 2015

This inspection took place on 15 January 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours’ notice of this inspection because the service is small and we needed to be sure they would be in. The previous inspection took place in January 2014. The provider had met the standards that were inspected.

The service has a registered manager who was supported by a care manager. 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.

Nautilus Care is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to retired seafarers and their dependants in their homes within the Mariners’ Park estate. Additional services such as escorted outings are also available. At the time of our inspection, 17 people used the service.

People told us they felt safe whilst being supported by the service. Relatives of people who used the service believed their relative was well cared for and was safe. People told us that staff were caring and were responsive to their needs. We found that people were involved in the planning of their care and had an opportunity to say what was important to them. Care plans were person centred and were written around the needs of people who used the service.

The provider had robust and effective recruitment processes in place so that people were supported by staff of a suitable character. Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Medicines were managed safely and medication agreements had been drawn up and agreed with people who used the service.

People were supported by staff that had the required skills to promote their safety and welfare. Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider had a continual training programme in place that was effectively monitored.

People were seen to eat together at the ‘HUB’ café. Nobody who used the service had been identified as being at risk of poor nutrition. However, plans were in place to source training for staff by spring 2015 in relation to this in case such risk emerged.

The registered manager was partnered with the National Activity Providers Association (NAPA) in order to deliver meaningful bespoke activities for people who used the service.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they had no complaints about the service. They told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt the manager was approachable.

The service was well managed. Systems were in place for checking on the quality of service provided. People spoke highly of the management team that was in place. The registered manager was continually trying to improve the service and had plans in place to demonstrate how they were going to do this.

Correct procedures had not always been followed when submitting notifications to the Commission. The registered manager did not follow due process in relation to changes to the services registration as legally required.