Karrek Community

Updated 22 May 2018

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.

This was a comprehensive inspection. It took place on 12 and 15 March 2018 and was announced. The reason it was announced was so people who would find our visit a challenge, could be informed that we would be visiting or contacting them. This was to help them prepare for our contact. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Inspection site visit activity started on 12 March 2018 and ended on 20 March 2018. We visited the office location on 12 March 2018 and 15 March 2018 to see the management team and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures. We also met with two people who used the service, one in their own home. We also spoke with one person who was using the service on the telephone?.

We used a range of methods to help us make our judgements. This included talking to three people using the service, two relatives, interviewing staff, pathway tracking (reading people’s care plans, and other records kept about them), and reviewing other records about how the service was managed.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service and notifications of incidents we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern. We also reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). The PIR provides key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements the provider plan to make. We also spoke with professionals and relatives of people who used the service to find out what they thought about the service.

Updated 22 May 2018

Karrek Community Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to vulnerable adults. The packages of care that Karrek Community Care provides range from 30 minutes a day to 24 hour care dependant on the person’s care needs. The care provided covers the area of Cornwall.

Not everyone using Karrek Community Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection Karrek was providing personal care to eight people.

This service provides care and support to one person living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

We carried out this announced inspection on 12 and 15 March 2018. At the last inspection, in November 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were extremely satisfied with the quality of the service they received and the caring approach from staff. People told us; “They (care staff) look after me very well. They are my lifeline,” and “I can’t fault them (staff) they are at the top of their scale.” Relatives echoed people’s views on the care that their family members received. Comments included: “They [staff] have been so good, they know [person’s name] so well” and “[Person’s name] is being cared for by staff that really care and are so supportive.”

The registered provider and team leaders were confident about the action to take if they had any safeguarding concerns and had liaised with the safeguarding teams as appropriate. Risk assessments clearly identified any risk and gave staff guidance on how to minimise the risk. They were designed to keep people and staff safe while allowing people to develop and maintain their independence.

Staff were aware of the reporting process for any accidents or incidents that occurred and there was a system in place to record incidents. Where accidents, incidents or near misses had occurred these had been reported to the service’s managers and documented in the service’s accident book.

One person had experienced a missed call. However as soon as this was identified an investigation into why it was missed and what action was needed to ensure future visits were not missed were put in place. The management team told us missed visits were, “not an option.” The service had robust and effective procedures in place to ensure that all planned care visits were provided.

The service’s visit schedules were well organised and there were a sufficient number of staff available to provide people’s care visits in accordance with their preferences.

People and relatives told us their staff never rushed their visits and stayed for the correct duration. Karrek operated an on call system outside of office hours. Care staff told us managers would respond promptly to any queries they might have.

There were processes in place to protect people and the security of their home when they received personal care, for example, all staff carried identification. People received information about who they should expect to be delivering their care so they were aware of who was due to call upon them.

People told us staff had sought their consent for their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received relevant training and understood the principles of the Act.

People were supported by stable and consistent staff teams who knew people well and had received training specific to their needs. Training records showed staff had been provided with all the necessary training which had been refreshed regularly.

Staffs were recruited in a safe way and available in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported by a system of induction, training, one-to-one supervision and appraisals to

ensure they were effective in their role.

Staff knew how to ensure each person was supported as an individual in a way that did not discriminate against them in any way. People’s legal rights were understood and upheld.

Everyone told us staff ensured their dignity and privacy was promoted.

Staff were respectful of the fact they were working in people’s homes. The service offered flexible support to people and were able to adapt in order to meet people’s needs and support them as they wanted.

People’s care plans were detailed, personalised and provided staff with sufficient information to enable them to meet people’s care needs. The care plans included objectives for the planned care that had been agreed between the service and the individual. All of the care plans we reviewed were up to date and accurately reflected each person’s individual needs and wishes. The service’s risk assessment procedures were designed to enable people to take risks while providing appropriate protection.

The registered provider and management team provided clear leadership to the staff team and were valued by people, staff and relatives. There was a whole team culture, the focus of which was how they could do things better for people.

Karrek Community Care values were based on Christian principles. A staff member said “I love the work, I love it that I work for a Christian organisation and can connect with people on that level. But we also support people who are non-Christian and that’s fine. We don’t talk about it unless they want us to.” Staff told us they only shared their beliefs with people who wanted this.

People and relatives all described the management of the service as open and approachable. People and their families were given information about how to complain. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.