Archived: Housing & Care 21 - Camden Homecare

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

We spoke with 15 people, 11 of whom used the service and four family members of people using the service.

People were mostly complementary about the standard of care and support they received from the service. When we asked about communication with staff at the agency we were told 'Yes I know her name (referring to their care co-ordinator)' and 'at the office I speak to (named the staff member) she is rather good. She is the one person who is good at persuading my (relative) to look after themselves.'

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with all felt that they were safe using the service and also felt confident about raising concerns if necessary.

During our visit we talked with staff about their understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff demonstrated a knowledge and awareness of both of these areas.

We noted that there had been a recent increase in the volume of missed calls and spoke with the service manager about what action would be taken to ensure that this did not become a normal occurrence. We were informed that this was being raised with staff at team meetings and at individual staff supervision meetings in order to emphasise the importance of contacting the agency if there were any problems about making a visit.

Is the service effective?

The people who were using this service each had a care plan. We looked at the care plans for five of these people. The care plans covered personal, physical, social and emotional support needs. These plans were updated at regular intervals to ensure that information remained accurate.

Staff we spoke with were all able to describe how they recognised people's needs, and believed that the staff communicated well which was beneficial for responding to people's needs.

Is the service caring?

Every person who spoke with us said that the manger was approachable and most felt that she and staff were empathetic.

We asked people if they had been involved in decisions about their care plan and if they had seen it, understood it and been allowed to sign to agree the plan. People told us 'Yes I am always consulted', 'I understand and I tell them what I want and how I would like it done' and 'I am extremely happy with the service.' About the manager of the service one person told us ' the one in charge at the office is very good, she listens to what I say and asks me my views all the time', a viewpoint which was echoed by several people we spoke with.

Is the service responsive?

At the time of this inspection there were no safeguarding concerns.

The staff we spoke with said that they had received training about protecting vulnerable adults from abuse and were able to describe that action they would take if a concern arose. It was the policy of the service provider to ensure that staff had initial training which was then followed up with periodic refresher training.

We looked at systems for monitoring day to day matters at the service. We found that the provider regularly reviewed the effectiveness of the service, although we noted that a survey of people using the service had not occurred since 2011 although questionnaires had recently been issued for an updated survey.

Is the service well-led?

People told us that 'I am visited have been asked if things are ok for me', 'I think the service is very well managed, I am kept well informed all of the time', 'the manager knows how to manage the carers, they are fantastic' and 'it is very well organised and always phone me when there are some changes or if the carers are running late for some reason.'

Aside from the external quality audits the manager was required to compile regular reports for the provider about the running of the service and events that happen within the service for monitoring purposes.

At our last inspection of the service on 26 June 2013 we were concerned that people who used the service were put at risk because staff were late or missed visits. At this inspection we found that staff were given enough time to travel between visits. People who used the service indicated that staff came 'on time'. A social care professional told us that there had no reported missed calls or late visits recently.

We noted that the provider worked closely with other health and social care professionals. This enabled people who used the service to receive care and support that met their needs.

The service had systems in place to ensure people received safe care. Training and supervision were provided for staff. However, staff sometimes missed visits or arrived late. We thought this put people at risk and asked the provider to tell us how they should address it.

People who used the service said they felt and staff were 'friendly'. They told us their cultural and dietary needs were met. Most of the files for the people's contained up-to-date care plans and risk assessments indicating that people's needs were identified and met. However, some people were potential at risk because their care plans were not reviewed.

People who used the service felt they were involved in their care. They told us the agency telephoned or visited them to ask them if they were happy with the service. Senior staff told us they visited to check if people were satisfied with the care and support they were receiving.