Archived: Allied Healthcare Rochdale

Updated 29 April 2017

This inspection took place on 30 and 31 March 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provided personal care in the community and we needed to be sure that staff and managers would be present in the office.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service including notifications the provider had made to us. This helped to inform us what areas we would focus on as part of our inspection. We contacted the local authority and Healthwatch for their views about the home. They did not have any major concerns.

During the inspection we spoke with the manager, area manager, the area trainer and two members of the care staff team. We visited and talked to four people and their families in their homes with their permission. We also looked at people’s views from quality assurance surveys.

We looked at care records for four people in the office and two with the person’s permission in their home. We also looked at a range of records relating to how the service was managed; these included training records, recruitment, quality assurance audits and policies and procedures.

Updated 29 April 2017

Allied Healthcare Rochdale is based in Rochdale, Greater Manchester and provides personal care and support services to people who live in their own homes. There were currently 80 people who used the service.

At the time of the inspection there was not a person registered with the Care Quality Commission as 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. When a service does not have a registered manager we place a limiter on the well led domain of the report, which cannot be rated as good.

Staff were aware of and had been trained in safeguarding procedures to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service.

Risk assessments for health needs or environmental hazards helped protect the health and welfare of people who used the service but did not restrict their lifestyles.

Staff were trained in the administration of medicines and managers checked the records to help spot any errors and keep people safe.

People were supported to take a healthy diet if required and staff were trained in food safety.

Plans of care were individual to each person and showed staff had taken account of their wishes. Plans of care were regularly reviewed.

The agency asked for people’s views around how the service was performing to improve the service.

There was a suitable complaints procedure for people to voice their concerns. We saw that any concerns had been investigated fully and action taken if required.

Staff were recruited robustly to help minimise the risk of abuse to people who used the service.

Staff were trained in medicines administration and supported people to take their medicines if it was a part of their care package.

Staff received an induction and were supported when they commenced work to become competent to work with vulnerable people. Staff were well trained and supervised to feel confident within their roles. Staff were encouraged to take further training in health and social care topics.

Management conducted sufficient audits to ensure the service was performing well.

The office was suitable for providing a domiciliary care service and was staffed during office hours. There was an on call service for people to contact out of normal working hours.

People who used the service thought managers were accessible and available to talk to.

Staff were trained in infection prevention and control and issued with personal equipment to help protect the health and welfare of people who used the service.