Archived: Sarah's Carers LLP

During the inspection evidence was gathered to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

We found the service was safe because people told us they felt safe. One person said, 'I feel secure, if I need any extra help I just call.' Staff had a clear understanding of their responsibilities to report abuse and all staff we spoke with had received safeguarding vulnerable adults training.

People received safe and effective care. People's needs were assessed and care plans reflected their identified needs. We saw that where risks were identified these had been assessed and appropriate action taken. For example, where people required support with moving and handling, risk assessments were in place and appropriate equipment provided.

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 The manager was aware of the recent Supreme Court judgement in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty and would take appropriate action if a person was being deprived of their liberty.

Is the service effective?

We found the service was effective. People were supported in a dignified and respectful manner. We saw that care records were person centred and written with the involvement of the person and their families.

People were supported by staff that were appropriately trained and had the skills to meet people's needs. Staff received regular supervision and had personal development plans that identified additional qualifications and training to enable them to develop in their roles.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by caring staff. One person told us, 'They are very, very good. Everything is provided as it should be.'

Care plans identified people's individual needs and staff had a clear knowledge of the people they supported. One care worker told us, 'It's about the whole person; it [the care] is centred round them.'

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to people's needs. People's needs were assessed when they accessed the service. People's care plans reflected their needs and preferences.

Where changes in people's needs were identified appropriate support from health professionals was sought and changes to care needs met. For example, a care worker had reported concerns about a person's declining memory. This information had been shared with the memory clinic and an appointment was arranged.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well-led. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. A client survey had been conducted to gain the views of people using the service and their relatives.

There was a clear procedure for recording incidents and accidents. Any incidents and accidents relating to people who used the service were recorded and appropriate action taken.

There were auditing systems in place. For example there was a system to monitor the times of visits and reduce the risk of missed visits as it notified the senior member of staff on call if a visit was 15 minutes late.

We met with the registered manager and spoke with four care workers. We looked at four care plans, spoke with two people who used the service and two relatives of people. People were very happy with the service they received. One said 'they are reliable, their staff know what they're doing and they're professional'. Another said care workers were 'compassionate'. An assessment of people's needs was undertaken and care was planned and delivered to meet people's individual needs. One person said 'Sarah came; we had a long chat about what I required and whether they could meet those needs. So far they have'.

Care workers we spoke with showed a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported and were introduced to people by an experienced colleague. Care was delivered by a small consistent team.

The provider operated robust recruitment procedures. However, it was not clear how the competence of care workers was assessed during their induction. Care workers did not know how to report concerns of abuse outside of the service.

Records we looked at lacked clarity to ensure that care would be delivered to a consistent standard. Systems had not been fully devised to ensure the quality of care would be monitored on an on-going basis and that risks to people's welfare and safety were managed.