Background to this inspection
Updated
26 January 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 the first inspection of this service since My Life (Carewatch) Ltd took over as the provider in May 2017. This inspection was brought forward as CQC had some concerns about some of the provider’s other newly-acquired services.
Inspection site visit activity started on 7 November 2017 and ended on 16 November 2017. It included telephone conversations with people who used the service, their relatives and staff and a visit to the office location. We visited the office location on 9 November 2017 to see the manager and office staff and to review records. The inspection was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the visit to the office because it is a small service and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.
The inspection team included one inspector, an inspection manager and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Prior to the inspection we looked at information we held about the service and used this information as part of our inspection planning. The information included notifications. Notifications are information on important events that happen in the service that the provider is required by law to notify us about. We had not requested a provider information return (PIR) from the provider. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
We spoke over the telephone with three people who were using the service and relatives of four other people who were using the service. We spoke with one senior care worker, two care workers and the manager. We looked at three people’s care records as well as other records relating to the management of the service. These included staff personnel files, an induction workbook, daily records and the complaints and compliments folder.
Updated
26 January 2018
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community, including specialist housing. It provides a service to adults and older people.
This is the first inspection of this service since it was taken over by My Life (Carewatch) Ltd in December 2016.
The inspection visit to the service’s office took place on 9 November 2017 and was announced. We gave the manager 48 hours’ notice as we needed to be sure that there would be someone in the office. Prior to the site visit, on 7 November 2017 we held telephone conversations with three people who were using the service and relatives of four other people who were using the service. On 16 November 2017 we spoke on the telephone with staff.
This service requires a registered manager as a condition of its registration. 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. There was a manager in post who had applied to the CQC for registration.
People felt safe with the staff and with the service that the staff provided them with. People were protected as far as possible from abuse and avoidable harm by staff who were trained and competent to recognise and report any potential harm. Assessments of all potential risks to people and to staff were carried out and measures put in place to minimise the risks.
There were enough staff deployed to make sure that people were safe and their needs could be met in a personalised and unhurried way. The provider had a recruitment process that reduced the risk of unsuitable staff being employed. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as they had been prescribed. Staff followed the correct procedures to prevent the spread of infection. Staff understood their responsibility to report any accidents and incidents.
Holistic assessments of people’s needs were carried out to ensure that the service could meet those needs in the way the person preferred. Technology was used to enhance the care being provided. A telephone system stored all the information each staff member needed and logged the times the staff arrived at and left each person’s home.
Staff received induction, training and support to enable them to do their job well. When required, staff supported people with their meals by heating up a ready meal or making a sandwich. Staff involved other healthcare professionals such as GPs in people’s care if the person needed assistance with this.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.
People and their relatives were full of praise for the staff, told us the staff treated them with kindness and compassion and had very good relationships with the staff. Staff made people feel they mattered and knew each person, and the details about how they liked their care provided, very well.
People were involved in planning their care and support and information about advocacy services was available if anyone wanted an independent person to assist them with their affairs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and supported and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance relating to the care and support each person needed so that people received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.
A complaints process was in place and people, their relatives and staff were confident that any issues would be addressed by the management team. The provider had a process in place to meet people’s end-of-life care needs when this was required.
People and their relatives praised the service, the management and the staff and said they would happily recommend this service to others. The manager provided good leadership and ensured that staff were clear about their role to provide people with a high quality service, thus upholding the values of the service. Staff felt well supported and happy to be working for this service.
A quality assurance system was in place, including a number of ways in which people, their relatives, staff and other stakeholders were asked to give their views about the service and how it could be improved. Audits and monitoring checks on various aspects of the service, including spot-checks on the way staff worked with people, were carried out. Processes were in place to ensure that any shortfalls were addressed.
The manager was aware of their responsibility to uphold legal requirements, including notifying the CQC of various matters. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that joined-up care was provided to people.