Alcedo Care Southport

Updated 17 November 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 was 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 15 and 16 October 2018. The provider was given 48 hours' notice of our visit because we wanted to ensure the registered manager was available to support the inspection process.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector 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; the Expert by Experience carried out telephone interviews to people who used the service and relatives where appropriate.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law.

Before the inspection we received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). This document gave the registered provider the opportunity to tell us about how the service delivers safe, effective, compassionate and high-quality care to people and what plans they have in place to continue to make improvements to the service. We contacted the local authority commissioning team to ask for their views. They did not raise any concerns at this time. We used all this information to plan how the inspection was conducted.

During the inspection we visited the agency’s office and looked at a selection of records and documents relating to the service. This included, assessments of risk and care planning documents, medicines records, complaints, audits, governance records, as well as policies and procedures. We looked at the recruitment records of four staff members and the current staffing rotas.

During the inspection we met and spoke with the registered manager, two directors for the organisation, the training manager, a field care supervisor and office staff. We also met and spoke with five staff (carers). As part of the inspection we carried out telephone interviews with six people who used the service and two relatives. We received feedback from a community-based health professional who had contact with the service.

Updated 17 November 2018

The inspection took place on 15 and 16 October 2018 and was announced.

This was the first inspection of Kare Plus (Southport) since it was registered in December 2017.

Kare Plus (Southport) operates as a franchise of Kare Plus. It provides care and support to people in their own homes including; companionship, home help and personal care. This report focuses on the experiences of people who received personal care as part of their support package. The people currently using the service are older people, some of whom are living with dementia.

At the time of our inspection Kare Plus (Southport) was providing a service to 35 people. There were 23 people receiving the regulated activity of personal care.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of the inspection.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 received personalised care which was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. Staff were knowledgeable regarding people’s support and how they wish to be treated in their own home.

People had a plan of care which was centred around their individual support needs. This included some information about their routines, likes, dislikes, preference and choices to enable staff to deliver this how they wished. We found some inconsistencies in the detail recorded and we discussed with the registered manager way of improving these records to provide more individualised care records.

Risks to people’s health and risks identified within people’s homes were identified during an initial assessment and control measures were put in place to minimise these risks to provide safe care.

People and relatives were complimentary regarding the caring and polite attitude of the staff. Staff respected people's right to privacy and to be treated with dignity.

The registered manager ensured a consistent staff team to support people in their own home.

Communication between relatives, people being supported, staff and senior management was effective.

Staff members we spoke with fully understood the importance of acknowledging people’s diversity, treating people equally and ensure that they promoted people’s rights.

People who required support with their medicines received them safely and the staff had completed training in the safe administration of medicines, which included observations and competency assessments. Medicine audits were completed to look at errors and lessen the risk of re-occurrence.

Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff had received training in the protection of adults and knew what action they should take if they suspected or witnessed abuse.

The provider understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and took the necessary action if they had concerns about people's capacity. We spoke with the registered manager regarding better recording of outcomes from the mental capacity assessments to ensure people were fully protected.

People were very much encouraged to have choice and control of their lives and were involved with decisions about their support. Their consent was sought around day-to-day decisions.

Staff received regular support and training to keep up to date with best practice. Staff told us the training programme was good and provided them with the skills to support people safely.

We saw liaison with community based professionals to support people in their own home thus maintaining their health needs and independence.

People were fully supported to follow their chosen interests and maintain relationships with relatives and friends that mattered to them.

People had access to a complaints procedure. Complaints received were logged, investigated and responded to. No one at the time of the inspection raised any concerns, all the feedback we received was very positive.

Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor standards and lead on improvements. This included quality checks on how the service was delivered and seeking people’s views about the agency. Feedback from people and their relatives informed us the agency was well managed and staff well trained.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.