Background to this inspection
Updated
27 April 2019
The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.
Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type 94 Priestley Road is a domiciliary (home care) care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. 94 Priestley Road provides care and support mainly to people nearing the end of their life. Not everyone using a domiciliary care agency receives the regulated activity of personal care. 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. There were six people receiving the regulated activity of personal care at the time of the inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. The registered manager was also the provider.
Notice of inspection: We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection site visit because we needed to make sure that the registered manager would be in.
Inspection site visit activity started on 14 March 2019 and ended on 01 April 2019. It included visit to the office and telephone calls to people, relatives and staff to get feedback about the service they received. We visited the office location on 14 March 2019 to see the manager and to review care records and policies and procedures.
What we did:
Prior to this inspection we reviewed information we had received about the service. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse. We requested information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We have not received this information from the provider as they had not notified CQC when their contact details changed.
During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, a relative and a staff member. We also contacted a health care professional for feedback about the service. We tried to contact three staff members, however only one answered our calls. One relative told us they did not wish to speak with us. We reviewed two care plans for people, two staff employment files, the providers policies and procedures and reviewed other records relating to the management of the service.
Updated
27 April 2019
About the service: 94 Priestley Road is a domiciliary (home care) care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt the care and support they received was safe. Staff had not received training in safeguarding from the provider. The registered manager told us they accepted in-date certificates from staff`s previous employers as proof of training. Staff told us they reported their concerns to the registered manager, however they were unsure about how to report their concerns externally to the local authority or the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
Relatives told us they could rely on staff coming to visit them, however they were not always sure what time staff would turn up. The registered manager told us they supported people who were nearing the end of their life and at times they spent more time with people which delayed the visit to the next person.
Staff had not received training from the provider. The registered manager told us they only recruited experienced and trained staff as their business was at the beginning. They had not carried out competency checks on staff but the manager commenced these and sourced some training for staff following the inspection.
Care plans were not developed fully. The registered manager accepted and followed a plan of care done by the health or social care professional who referred people to them. They had not assessed risks presented to people and staff whilst they were delivering care and support for people. The registered manager implemented an environmental and improved the mobility risk assessment for people following the inspection.
Not all the provider`s policies and procedures were personalised or relevant to the service they operated. This had been reviewed by the registered manager after the inspection.
Relatives told us staff were kind and caring when supporting people and ensured people were comfortable and their assessed needs were met. Relatives told us they had no concerns about the staff and the care they provided. They only complained that staff were late at times.
Staff told us they were happy with the support they received from the registered manager who was a registered nurse, however they had no formal supervision. They told us they always worked in pairs which meant that often were working with the registered manager who could give them guidance where needed.
The registered manager had no formal audit system to monitor the quality of the service, however they told us they worked hands on and saw people and relatives at least once a month so that they could receive feedback about the service people received.
Rating at last inspection: This was the first inspection of the service since they registered with the Care Quality Commission on 09 March 2018.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.