Archived: Synergy Homecare - Kirklees

Updated 28 June 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.

A comprehensive inspection took place on 23 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an adult social care assistant inspector.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we had about the service including statutory notifications and other intelligence. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and contracts department, safeguarding adults team, infection control, the fire and police services, environmental health, the clinical commissioning group, and Healthwatch Kirklees to assist us in planning the inspection. We reviewed all the information we had been provided with from third parties to fully inform our approach to inspecting this service.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we met with the registered manager, four care workers and three other members of staff. We also spoke over the telephone with five people who used the service and one of their relatives.

We looked at six care plans including risk assessments, five staff records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 28 June 2018

We inspected Synergy Homecare – Kirklees on 23 May 2018 and the inspection was unannounced. This meant the service did not know we were coming.

We previously inspected the service on 14, 20 and 21 March 2017 and the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ in four of the five key questions and overall, and as ‘Good’ in the key question of caring. We identified breaches of the regulations relating to need for consent and good governance. As a result, we served the registered provider with two warning notices.

Following the last inspection, we met with the provider to discuss improvements required. They provided an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve all the key questions to at least good. On this visit, we checked to see if improvements had been made.

Synergy Homecare – Kirklees is a domiciliary care agency that operates in the Kirklees area. The agency provides a range of support for individuals in their own home which includes personal care, social care and domestic assistance. At the time of our inspection 56 people were receiving support from this provider.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training which was kept up to date. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

There were robust risk assessments in place which also covered the environment in which people were supported. There were risk specific assessments which identified risks and the measures which were put in place to minimise the risks to people.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. There was a high level of consistency in the staff who attended each person. People told us they knew the staff who were supporting them.

Staff recruitment pre-employment checks had been carried out. Internal audits had not identified gaps in candidates’ employment history had not always been explored.

People were supported with medication and medicine administration records were audited monthly. However, some minor issues were not always picked up by the registered provider’s heads office audit process.

We have made a recommendation about effective audit processes.

Staff had undertaken training on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Care records evidenced people had consented to care and treatment. Staff told us how they would always ask for verbal consent to care before assisting people.

New staff were supported in their role, which included training and shadowing a more experienced staff member. We saw evidence staff had received regular ongoing training in a variety of subjects. Staff received regular supervision and field based observational spot check assessments of their performance.

Staff knew how to access relevant healthcare professionals if their input was required.

People we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring. Staff treated them with respect and took steps to maintain their dignity and privacy. People’s private information was kept confidential.

People had a care plan in place which was person centred and provided sufficient detail to enable staff to provide the care and support required by each individual. Staff made a record of the care they provided at each call.

There was a complaints process in place; however there had been very few complaints received and none during 2018. People told us they knew what to do if they had any concerns or complaints about the service.

People supported told us the service was well led. They told us they were asked for their input and feedback regularly, during verbal contact and more formally in reviews and an annual satisfaction survey.

Feedback regarding the registered manager was positive. People spoke highly about the management of the service.

The service worked in partnership with other organisations and healthcare professionals.