Background to this inspection
Updated
9 January 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 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.
The inspection team consisted of 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.
Before the inspection visit we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included looking at previous inspection reports and notifications the provider had sent us. The provider sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR) which gave us information about the service. 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.
During the inspection we spent time at the main office looking at records and talking with the registered manager. We visited two homes and met five people who used the service. We spoke to two senior care staff and four care staff. We received information from two social care professionals following the inspection. The expert by experience spoke to 14 representatives of people who used the service.
We looked at three care records. We looked at four staff files and other records relating to the management of the service, including complaints and quality monitoring audits.
This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’
The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.
Updated
9 January 2015
This inspection was announced. We had informed the registered manager prior to the inspection to ensure that someone would be available to facilitate it. Our last inspection took place in November 2013, at that inspection there was no breaches in the regulations.
Care UK Learning Disabilities Staffordshire Ltd provides personal care to people in their own homes or supported living accommodation.
Care UK is required to have a registered manager in place. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.
People who used the service were unable to tell us if the care they received was good. Their relatives told us they were pleased with the care provided by Care Uk.
The provider had systems in place to keep people safe. Staff were well trained and supported to fulfil their role. The service had a recruitment process in place. Records we looked at confirmed that staff were only employed with the service after all essential pre-employment safety checks had been satisfactorily completed.
We found that appropriate systems were in place to ensure that there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff employed with the service. Arrangements were in place to ensure that newly employed staff received an induction and received opportunities for training. Records also showed that staff received regular supervision.
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. We saw evidence that best interest meetings had taken place where people lacked capacity. A formal best interests meeting maybe required to plan the decisions needed where the issues facing the person who lacks capacity are very complex.
People’s health care needs were met through close monitoring and with support from external agencies. When people’s needs changed this was quickly noticed and the relevant support was gained.
People had access to a wide range of activities. The service supported people to be as independent as they were able to be.
Care was planned and personalised. Records, observations and discussions with staff demonstrated that people using the service were at the centre. Regular reviews took place to ensure that where people’s preferences had changed this was identified.
Records viewed showed that the service had responded to people’s complaints and concerns in line with the complaints procedure. We found that people had been listened to and the issues raised had been acted upon.