Archived: Givecare (Nottingham)

Updated 13 November 2015

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 inspection took place on 13 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that staff would be available.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an Expert-by-Experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This 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 reviewed information the provider had sent us including statutory notifications. These are made for serious incidents which the provider must inform us about. We also contacted two local authorities who funded some of the support people received for their feedback about the service.

At the provider’s office we looked at five people’s care records and other documentation about how the service was managed. This included policies and procedures and information about staff training. We also looked at the provider’s quality assurance systems. We spoke with the registered manager, the office manager, the care coordinator, a senior care worker and the quality assurance manager. We also gave other care workers the opportunity to participate in the inspection by leaving our contact details.

After the inspection we contacted some people that used the service and some relatives for their feedback about the service by telephone. We spoke with 13 people that used the service and four relatives of people that used the service. In addition we contacted four care workers for their feedback about the provider.

Updated 13 November 2015

We carried out an announced inspection of the service on 13 October 2015.

Givecare (Nottingham) provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing the regulatory activity of personal care to 45 people.

Givecare (Nottingham) is required to have a registered manager in post. 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. At the time of our inspection the service had a registered manager.

At the last inspection in July 2013 the provider was meeting the essential standards of quality and safety required of them.

People that used the service and relatives we spoke with told us they felt the care workers provided safe and effective care. Care workers had a good understanding of the various types of abuse and their roles and responsibilities in reporting any safeguarding concerns.

People’s needs were assessed and planned for when they first started using the service. This information was then developed into a plan of care and other documentation such as risk assessments were completed. This information was reviewed for changes and communicated to care workers. This information was not always as detailed as it should have been to ensure people’s wellbeing and safety.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. This is legislation that protects people who are unable to make specific decisions about their care and treatment. It ensures best interest decisions are made correctly and a person’s liberty and freedom is not unlawfully restricted. People’s rights were not fully protected because MCA assessments and best interest decisions were not completed by the provider.

People spoke highly of the care staff and complemented them on their approach. They referred to them as kind and caring. Additionally, people said that the service had improved with the change of office staff that they described as polite and responsive when they contacted them.

The provider ensured there were sufficient care workers employed and deployed appropriately. There was a system in place that monitored visits by care workers that identified late or missed calls. On the whole people received visits from regular care workers. No concerns about visit times being met or the duration of visits were raised. Safe recruitment checks were in place that ensured people were cared for by suitable care workers.

People said they found care workers to be competent and knowledgeable. People were supported appropriately with their food and drinks. Support was provided with people’s healthcare needs and action was taken when changes occurred.

Care workers were appropriately supported, which consisted of formal and informal meetings to discuss and review their learning and development needs. Care workers additionally received an induction and ongoing training. Care workers were positive about the leadership of the service and were clear about the vision and values of the service.

The provider had checks in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. The provider had notified us of important events registered providers are required to do.