Background to this inspection
Updated
7 July 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 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 team consisted of one inspector and was conducted on the 27 May 2015. We informed the service of our visit, which we are allowed to do for domiciliary services, two days prior to the inspection and to arrange to meet sitters and family members.
Before this inspection we reviewed previous inspection reports and notifications that we had received from the service. At this inspection we were not able to request a Provider Information Return (PIR) in time for the service to respond. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make.
We asked Blackburn with Darwen Healthwatch and the local authority safeguarding and contracts departments for their views of the home. They did not have any concerns.
During the inspection we spoke with three parents of children who used the service, two of the four sitters employed by the service, a staff member and a registered manager. We looked at the care records for three children who used the service, two log books and four staff files. We also looked at a range of records relating to how the service was managed; these included training records, documents relating to the provision of the service and policies and procedures. We visited the office and met three parents, one child and two sitters who kindly came in to see us.
Updated
7 July 2015
The service is registered to provide personal care for children. Currently the service looks after five children. This is a sitting service which meant staff were only responsible for looking after children to give parents a short break. This was usually for no more than a half day a week, although parents told us staff were flexible and if the child wanted to go somewhere which took longer staff would arrange the hours in a way that balanced during two weeks or would come on a day other than their usual visit day.
We last inspected this service in April 2014 when the service met all the standards we inspected.
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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was on maternity leave but came in during the inspection to assist the member of staff who was in charge.
We looked at staff files and the training matrix. We found staff were robustly recruited, trained in topics relevant to the service and were in sufficient numbers to meet children’s needs. There had not been any new staff employed by the service for some time which meant children who used the service were familiar with the sitters who looked after them.
The parents of children applied to the service who sent staff to assess the child’s and family’s needs in depth. A sitter, who it was thought was suitable met the child and the family. The sitter was supported by a member of staff. If the child, family and sitter got on well they looked after the child whilst parents had a short break. Staff regularly checked to ensure the arrangement were working well. Parents we spoke with told us they had a good relationship with the sitter and staff who ran the service.
Sometimes staff took children out for meals. The matching process ensured staff were aware of any cultural or dietary needs the child may have and went to appropriate places to dine.
Staff were not responsible for the administration of medicines.
This was a sitting service for the parents of children who have a disability. Staff were not responsible for any action under the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This was because the act does not include children. Furthermore staff are not responsible for the general welfare of the children who live with their parents. The average time staff spent with the children was 3 – 6 hours per week. The staff we spoke with had been trained in safeguarding topics and the parents we spoke with said staff followed safe practice and could be trusted.
The care service operated out of a shared office block and was not responsible for the upkeep of the building. Electrical equipment had been tested and there were suitable tests and arrangements for fire prevention. The offices were modern and contained sufficient equipment such as computers, telephones and desks. The offices were shared with other organisations but there were rooms for private conversations, training and public meeting rooms. We talked with two sitters and three parents in a private room.
Plans of care were individual to each child and had been regularly reviewed to keep staff up to date with any changes. The sitters who took children out completed a log book which recorded what they did, where they want and if any meal was taken. A family member signed the log after each visit and staff audited them to ensure the service was running smoothly.
Children were provided with meaningful activities and outings. The outings were developed over time and were dependent upon how much the child enjoyed and participated in them.
Policies and procedures were updated and management audits helped managers check on the quality of the service.
Children and their parents were able to voice their opinions and tell staff what they wanted in meetings, in their weekly outings and by completing a booklet. Parents told us they felt able to raise any concerns but did not have any. They said the registered manager was very approachable.
We saw there were systems for the registered manager to analyse incidents, accidents and compliments to improve the service or minimise risks. There had not been any concerns or incidents since the last inspection.