Archived: Hartlepool Care Services Limited

Hartlepool Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care agency and is known locally as ‘Carewatch’. It provides personal care to adults living in their own houses and flats in the community.

This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

On the day of our inspection there were 324 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like 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.

We last inspected the service in May 2016 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ however some statutory notifications had not been submitted to CQC. We are dealing with this matter outside the inspection process.

People told us they felt safe with the staff at Hartlepool Care Services Limited. Some people told us staff did not always arrive on time. The provider was aware of this and was implementing a new call monitoring system.

There was an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and relevant vetting checks were carried out. Staff were suitably trained and received regular supervisions and appraisals.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and risk assessments were in place. Safeguarding procedures had been correctly followed and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and care records contained evidence of people being supported during visits to and from external health care specialists.

People who used the service and family members were complimentary about the standard of care at Hartlepool Care Services Limited.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed before they started using the service and support plans were written in a person-centred way. Person-centred means ensuring the person is at the centre of any care or support plans and their individual wishes, needs and choices are taken into account.

People were protected from social isolation.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service were aware of how to make a complaint.

The provider had an effective quality assurance process in place. Staff said they felt supported by the management team. People who used the service and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service via meetings and surveys.

Hartlepool Care Services provides domiciliary care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided support to over 300 people.

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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

People told us they received their care from kind staff who treated them with dignity and respect. One person commented, “They are worth their weight in gold, I have regular carers and they are wonderful.” Another person said, “They are very kind when they are here. The regulars are excellent, they stay as long as they should. I have a regular care worker who comes to take me out, she’s very good.”

Care workers had a good understanding of safeguarding adults including how to report concerns. They were also aware of the whistle blowing procedure and said they would not hesitate to use the procedure if they had concerns.

People received their medicines from trained staff. Medicines administration records (MARs) we viewed were accurate and fully completed. Regular checks were carried out to help ensure people received the medicines they needed in a timely manner.

People were cared for by well trained and knowledgeable staff. Staff said they were supported to carry out their role. One staff member said, “We have supervision every three months. [Manager] is approachable, she would help.”

The registered provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Information was available to guide staff as to how to support people who lacked capacity with making day to day choices. People received the care they had consented to. One person commented, “They are very nice to me, they do what I want.”

Most people told us they received an inconsistent service due to frequent last minute changes to rotas. In particular, people said staff often turned up at different times and sometimes different care workers to those they expected to see.

New care workers were only employed following the completion of an effective recruitment process, including receiving references and checks with the disclosure and barring service (DBS).

Care worker supported people to meet their nutritional needs. One person told us, “They make my breakfast and see that I get a snack lunchtime, I make my own tea but it’s in the oven so I time it for when they come so they can put it on the tray.” Another person said, “They do my meals, I buy microwave meals and they do them for me.”

People’s needs were assessed shortly after they started using the service. However, assessments were generic and did not capture details of people’s specific needs and preferences. People had care plans and service user profiles in place which detailed the care and support they wanted from the service.

There was a complaints procedure for people to access if they had concerns. People told us they knew how to complain and would do so if they had concerns. One person told us, “I would just ring the office if anything was wrong.” The complaints log showed individual complaints had been investigated and action had been taken.

The registered provider had a range of checks in place to check on the quality of people’s care. People were sent questionnaires in order to provide feedback about their care. Most feedback received was positive.

We found the inconsistency of staffing was a feature throughput our inspection as negative feedback about this was apparent in complaints, service user reviews and consultation. The registered provider was in the process of re-structuring the service to improve the consistency of people’s care. This included developing new teams based around a particular locality.

The majority of people using the service were happy with the care and treatment provided and one person said, 'Staff do everything I need them too.' One relative told us that they were not happy because staff had not attended their relative as they should have. Once we highlighted this matter, staff dealt with it immediately. We saw that full assessments, risk and care plans were in place for people using the service.

We saw that the provider co-operated with other services, including for example; community service teams and Healthwatch.

We heard staff speaking respectfully and in a gentle manner to people they were caring for and found that the provider had employed suitably skilled, qualified and experienced staff.

Staff had opportunities to develop their skills with additional training opportunities. One staff member said "We are encouraged to do training". Staff told us that they attended supervision and full staff meetings and that the provider now had an open door policy.

We found that systems were in place to monitor the service that people received.

People's needs were assessed and risk assessed prior to commencing support from the service and reviewed regularly by the service and Local Authority to ensure that people's needs continued to be met.

Staff employed by the service underwent a robust recruitment process and had a Criminal Records Bureau check in place before starting work. They also took part in a thorough induction process that included training about safeguarding vulnerable adults.

People who used the service were given information about how to make complaints and where they had complained, these complaints had been investigated thoroughly and actions taken.