Archived: Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Leeds

Updated 9 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

This inspection took place on 2 and 3 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because we needed to ensure someone would be in the office.

The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector. At the time of the inspection there were eight people who used the service. We spoke with three relatives of people who use the service over the telephone and conducted a home visit where we spoke with one person who used the service and their relative.

We spoke with six members of staff, including the registered manager, clinical lead and care staff. We also spoke with a health professional in the community who had interactions with the service. We reviewed three recruitment files and four care records as well as policies and procedures relevant to people’s care.

Before our inspection we reviewed all information we held about the service, including notifications to CQC and the provider’s registration certificate. We contacted the local authority for any feedback on the service. The provider also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a document which asks providers to give key information about the service, what it does well and what improvements they intend to make.

Updated 9 December 2017

We inspected Sugarman Health and Wellbeing - Leeds on 2 and 3 November 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because we needed to make sure someone would be in the office when we visited. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Sugarman Health and Wellbeing – Leeds is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community.

Not everyone using Sugarman Health and Wellbeing – Leeds received a regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene, medicines and eating. However, we do also take into account any wider social care provided.

There was a registered manager at the service. 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.

Medicines were not always managed effectively. Although medicines were managed well overall, protocols for ‘as required’ or PRN medicines were not in place. Staff were well trained, and the service regularly monitored medicines administration through spot checks and reviews of medicine administration records.

We have made a recommendation about the management of medicines.

There were enough staff to look after people, and staff were recruited safely. This meant that people were protected from individuals who might not be suitable to care for vulnerable adults.

Staff received training in relation to vulnerable adults, and were confident in describing how they would identify abuse and protect people from harm. The service made appropriate notifications to CQC and the local safeguarding team.

Staff received good support through induction, training and supervision. The service regularly monitored training needs and compliance and also provided bespoke training for staff to care for people with specific needs.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a healthy lifestyle and people’s nutritional intake was monitored effectively where necessary.

People were cared for by kind and attentive staff who knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. There was a complaints process in place and people we spoke with told us they were confident they knew how to make a complaint if necessary.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and that they were confident they would be able to raise any concerns they had in their work. Staff told us they would recommend the service to others as a place to work and to receive care. Staff had regular peer support meetings, however staff did not generally engage with staff surveys that were sent by the provider.

The service effectively monitored the quality of the service they provided through audits and spot checks, and where necessary actions were approved and carried out to improve standards.