• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: ICCM House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Swallow Court, Kettering Parkway West, Kettering Venture Park, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX (01536) 525220

Provided and run by:
Independent Community Care Management Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

From 23 September to 13 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place from 23 September to 13 November 2015.

At the time of our inspection the service supported 73 adults and 12 children who required care for complex health needs, including care of tracheostomies and the use of ventilators for 22 people.

The service had a registered 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.'

The ethos of the service was that staff supported people to lead their lives by goal setting and enabling. All of the processes within the organisation were geared towards this ethos, from recruitment, training, local management to staff providing the care.

People were protected from harm arising from poor practice or ill treatment as there were clear safeguarding procedures in place for care staff to follow in practice if they were concerned about people’s safety.

All the people receiving care had complex health needs. Nurses monitored the clinical progress of people and linked with external healthcare services to ensure appointments were made and information was shared to maintain the stability of each person’s health.

People were assessed for their risks and plans of care were made to mitigate these risks. People had specific risk assessments and care plans relating to the provision of their medicines. People’s risks were managed in order to protect them whilst respecting their freedom. There were robust procedures and protocols for each person’s individual needs in an emergency and staff were trained to respond to people’s needs in an emergency.

Recruitment systems ensured that people were protected from the risks associated with the recruitment of new staff. Staff were employed specifically to meet individual people’s needs. The provider had a system to match people with care staff to find compatibility and people and their families were involved in the recruitment process.

The provider matched the needs of the people receiving care to the skills and competencies of their staff team. When staff were on leave or unplanned absences, the provider had systems in place to provide alternative competent staff. People described how the relationships with their staff teams were therapeutic and provided them with the confidence to be independent and achieve their goals.

People received care from staff that had undergone a period of induction which enabled them to acquire the skills and knowledge they required to provide safe care. Staff received regular training and updates, and their competencies were checked.

Staff received supervision from nurses and managers for their respective teams. Good team work and practice was recognised by the provider in the form of awards.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and applied that knowledge appropriately. There was a Mental Capacity Act policy and procedure for staff to follow to assess whether people had the capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People were regularly assessed for their risk of not eating or drinking enough to maintain their health and well-being. Staff followed detailed care plans that mitigated identified risks and followed health professionals advice and guidance.

People were involved in planning their care. People’s care needs were detailed in care plans which were reviewed and updated regularly or when their needs changed. The care plans provided care staff with the information they required to manage people’s complex medical needs.

People had the opportunity to feedback about the quality of their care in regular meetings with the locality managers, during contact with nurses and formally through surveys.

People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.

There was effective management and leadership of the service. The registered manager had management qualifications and experience in providing care and support to people with complex needs. The management promoted an open and honest culture within the organisation.

The service was a learning organisation; they took every opportunity to learn from problems, situations and complaints to learn and improve the service.

The provider had a comprehensive governance structure which drove improvement of the quality and safety of the service.

The provider had forged closer working relationships with healthcare organisations and by supporting their clinical leads to take an active part in national initiatives.

The service provided care for people throughout England, they had a good working relationship with over 20 different clinical commissioning groups and six local councils.

13 January 2014

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we reviewed care plans for some of the people who used the service. We saw that the plans were based on the people's assessed needs and requirements. Care plans were detailed and took account of people's individual requirements and how they would be supported.

We spoke with members of staff who told us, 'I love it. It's a good company, they support me well.'

One of the people who used the service told us, 'The ICCM care workers are my lifeline.'

We reviewed some safeguarding matters with the Provider and we looked and the Provider's policies and procedures for managing recruitment, quality assurance and Complaints. We found that the policies in place meant that services were reviewed regularly and any concerns or complaints were managed appropriately.

At the time of our visit the named Registered Manager had left the organisation. The new manager had submitted an application to be registered and that application was still in progress. Therefore the name of the previous manager appears on this report.

18 January 2013

During a routine inspection

Independent Community Care Management (ICCM) provide support to people in their homes, many of whom have serious medical conditions requiring complex and technical intervention.

ICCM Head Office is located in Kettering, where administrative functions are undertaken and the Directors are based. Services are provided across the southern counties of England, the East Midlands and as far north as South Yorkshire.

As part of our inspection we spoke to people who used the service and their family members. People told us that they were able to make decisions about their day-to-day lives and that their independence was promoted. We saw that people were assisted and encouraged to lead full and independent lives as much as possible.

One person who used services we spoke with told us, 'I am involved in my care planning and my views are listened to.'

We also reviewed care plans of the people who used services retained at the Head Office. We found the files contained detailed and up-to-date information. Comprehensive initial assessments of people's needs were supplement by regular and recorded reviews. The people who used services and their family members were involved in all aspects of the service as appropriate.

Another person we spoke to told us, 'ICCM listened to us and responded to changing needs really well.'

We found staff had a clear induction and learning and development path. Staff told us the training and support they received was excellent.

3 August 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people. We also spoke with four relatives about their views of the care provided.

Most of the people we spoke with were very satisfied with the care supplied by the service. Staff were seen as generally friendly and welcoming. The only suggestions for improving the service was to have case managers responding more quickly to relatives who had a query, and to ensure that people could always change care worker when they were not satisfied. The manager said that she would follow these suggestions up.

People largely praised the service: 'Staff are absolutely perfect. They could not be better'. 'I have complained before and the agency quickly resolved the problem'. 'I don't think staff could be any better. They are well trained, friendly and have a joke with you'. 'I am always pleased to see the staff. They help you out whenever they can'. 'I feel perfectly safe with all the staff.' There was comment that one staff had been abrupt to a person on occasion. The manager said she would investigate this.