Archived: Allied Healthcare Hull

Updated 5 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 8 and 9 November 2017 and was announced.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location is a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure someone would be in the office.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience who made telephone calls to people who used the service and their relatives. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Prior to the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We spoke with the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams to gain their views of the service. We also looked at the notifications we had received from the service and reviewed all the intelligence CQC held, to help inform us about the level of risk for this service.

We visited the office location on both days of the inspection to see the registered manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. On the second day of the inspection we visited four people in their own homes with staff from the agency.

During our inspection, we spoke with fifteen people who used the service and two of their relatives. We looked at care records for ten people who used the service and other important documentation including; medication administration records (MARS) and monitoring charts for food and fluids and weights.

We also spoke with the registered manager, two care coordinators, a care delivery trainer and six members of care staff. We also looked at personnel and training files for eight members of staff, staff supervision and appraisal records, as well as other records used in the management and monitoring of the service.

Updated 5 December 2017

The inspection took place on the 8 and 9 November 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provided a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available in the location office when we visited. The service provides personal care to people who live in their own homes in the East Hull area. At the time of our inspection there were 168 people receiving care and support from Allied Healthcare Hull.

During our inspection on 1 and 2 December 2016, we found the provider had taken appropriate action to achieve compliance with all of the regulations previously identified as non-compliant during the comprehensive inspection in June and July 2016. The service was rated 'requires improvement' at our inspection in December 2016 as we needed to ensure the improvements we found were sustained over time. At this inspection, we found the improvements have been sustained and we have rated the service as good.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Like providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found staff were recruited safely and sufficient numbers of staff provided individual packages of care and support. Staff received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse and they knew what to do if they had concerns. Medicines were handled safely and staff had received training in this area. We saw people had assessments of their needs prior to the provider offering them a service and senior staff completed individual risk assessments and care support plans.

Staff understood how to gain consent from people who used the service and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. People who used the service were supported by staff to eat a healthy diet and drink sufficiently to meet their individual needs, in line with their personal preferences. We found people were supported by a range of healthcare professionals to ensure their needs were met effectively.

Calls were managed by an electronic system and travel time had been introduced that ensured staff had sufficient time to travel between people’s homes and stay for the full-allocated call time. This had been supported further by the redeployment of staff into teams where calls were closer together; meaning less travelling time was required.

Staff were observed as kind and caring in their interactions with people and privacy and dignity were respected

.

The registered manager and staff were responsive to people’s changing needs. Reviews of people’s care were held on a regular basis and people who used the service were involved in the initial and on-going planning of their care. Care plans were in place, which focussed on supporting people who used the service to maintain their independence and ensure their care needs were met.

The service was led by a registered manager, who understood their responsibilities to inform the CQC when specific incidents occurred within the service. We found quality assurance systems were in place that consisted of audits, daily checks and questionnaires and details of any action taken to improve the service when shortfalls were identified.

A copy of the complaints policy and procedure was provided to each person and people told us they felt able to raise concerns with staff or the registered manager.