Archived: Hales Group Limited - Peterborough

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the number of different methods we used to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We looked at records, staff files and the provider's policies; we spoke with nine people using the service and one relative of a person using the service by telephone and five staff members. We also spoke with the registered manager and the general manager during our inspection.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

In the 13 copies of people's care records held in the office we looked at, we saw that risk assessments regarding people's individual care and support needs were carried out and that measures were in place to minimise those risks.

Records we looked at showed us that people who had chosen to be assisted in this way were supported with their prescribed medication by staff who were trained. However, the provider was unable to provide us with robust evidence that staff were assessed for their competency to administer medication, as we only saw evidence of this in two out of the five staff files we looked at.

On examination of 13 people's care records and five staff files, we found these indicated to us that the provider kept accurate records which could be located promptly when needed.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with made mainly positive comments about the care and support people received and that it enabled them to remain independent in their own homes. One person told us that, 'Staff are polite and give me choice, they listen to me.'

People who used the service and a relative who we spoke with said that staff respected people choices and the decisions they made. This was confirmed by the staff we spoke with who talked us through their process of gaining consent.

Staff we spoke with told us that staff meeting were open forums, where they were encouraged by management to ask any questions or make any suggestions that they may have had.

Is the service caring?

One person we spoke with told us that, '(Staff) are polite, they ask me what I would like and respect my choice.' Another person told us that, 'Hales Group Limited Peterborough has improved over the last few months. I feel that I can contact the office and they will try to help.'

Is the service responsive?

People and relatives we spoke with told us that the care and support met their or their relative's wishes and current care and support needs. We saw evidence in the care records we looked at that people had signed to say that they agreed their plan of care and support.

Is the service well-led?

People and relatives of people using the service who we spoke with told us how staff assisted them with the support and care that they had agreed to.

People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their feedback on the service provided. People we spoke with said that they were aware of how to raise a concern with the provider.

During this inspection on 19 November 2013, we found that the provider had taken remedial action and had made the required improvements.

On our inspection on 11 June 2013, we found that the Medication Administration Records (MARs) we reviewed, did not evidence accurate documentation to ensure that people were protected against the risk of medication misuse.

In the course of this inspection on 19 November 2013, we found that the provider had made the required improvements to the recording and monitoring of medication administration.

On 11 June 2013 inspection we found that the provider did not have an effective quality monitoring system in place to ensure the well-being and safety of people using the service.

During this inspection on 19 November 2013 we found that the provider had improved their quality monitoring of the service through audits, surveys and detailed action plans.

People's standard of care and welfare was not always maintained. This was because out of 13 care plans we reviewed, three did not reflect the changes to the person using the service support needs; such as number of staff needed to assist them. Also, eight out of 14 people we spoke with told us that they had experienced delayed care calls and that this had concerned them.

During our inspection on 17 January 2013 we saw that the Medication Administration Records (MARS) were not accurately completed to ensure that people were protected against the misuse of medication. During this visit of June 2013, we found the provider had not made all of the required improvements to the recording of medication administration.

Staff training was in place to make sure that people who used the service received safe support and care from suitable, skilled, and knowledgeable staff.

We did not see an effective quality assurance system in place. This was because the provider still had improvements to make to the service to ensure that safe care and support was provided to people.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post.

We found that people were supported to live a quality of life which promoted their sense of well-being and promoted their independence. Their care records provided members of staff with guidance in how people's individual support and care needs were to be met in a safe and appropriate way. One person who used the service told us, "Care is very good indeed."

People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had put appropriate measures in place.

When reviewing Medication Administration Records (MAR) we did not see evidence of accurate documentation to ensure that people were protected against the misuse of medication.

We saw staff training records that meant that people who used the service received safe and appropriate care from suitably trained and supported staff. One person who we spoke with told us, "Staff (are) well trained to meet (their) needs."

We did not see an effective quality assurance system was in place as the provider did not generate action plans using the results from feedback, complaints, incidents or audit to improve the quality of the service delivered.

There was an effective system in place for people to make a complaint if they wished to do so.