Background to this inspection
Updated
18 June 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by an inspection manager and an inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.
The service has a manager registered with CQC, who is also the nominated individual for the provider organisation. A nominated individual is a person who is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. As well as being the registered manager of the service and also being the nominated individual, they are also the only person with significant control of the provider organisation. This means they are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. In this report, due to the person's multiple roles, we will refer to them as the registered person.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service five days' notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider or registered manager would be in the office to support the inspection. Inspection activity started on 7 March 2020 and ended on 13 March 2020. We visited the office location on 7 March 2020.
What we did before the inspection
We looked at all the information we had collected about the service. This included previous inspection reports, information received and information about important events the registered person and others had sent us. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.
During the inspection
We spoke with the registered person and the consultant. We looked at the care plans for two people who use the service, plus associated monitoring records and medicine sheets. We also looked at two care staff’s recruitment files, (they had commenced working with the service since the last inspection), care staff training records and the care staff supervision log. We reviewed a number of other documents relating to the management of the service, for example, quality assurance documents and action plans.
After the inspection
We reviewed the additional information the registered person sent to us after the visit at our request. We sought feedback from six care staff and received responses from four. We contacted people who were receiving care from the service and relatives who gave their feedback on the quality of the care. We sought feedback from three community professionals and received one response.
Updated
18 June 2020
About the service
People Matter Support Services is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older people, younger adults and also those with learning disabilities and/or those on the autistic spectrum. Not everyone using the service receives personal care. The Care Quality Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with help with tasks related to personal care, hygiene and eating.
This service moved its office to a new address on 1 February 2020. When the office moved there was no change to the service provided, registered manager or care staff.
People’s experience of using this service
At the last inspection in July 2019 we found there were breaches of five regulations. At this inspection we found the registered person had taken positive steps and implemented systems to improve the quality and safety of the service provided. The registered person had hired an external consultant to support them with this implementation. Our findings demonstrated that the steps taken, and systems put in place were satisfactory in terms of ensuring people had safe effective care. This meant that the ratings for all five key questions and the overall rating for the service has improved at this inspection.
However, since the last inspection the provider had failed to consistently meet some conditions on their registration, namely to send the commission a monthly report on the first day of every month related to the areas of concern identified at the last inspection. Failure to comply with a condition of registration is a potential offence, this means that well-led cannot be rated better than requires improvement.
The registered person, with the support of the external consultant, was clear on the improvements that were still needed and understood that the systems and processes that were now in place were relatively new and further time, training and support was needed to ensure that they were embedded, and improvement sustained. We will check that improvements made have been sustained at our next planned comprehensive inspection.
Care staff recruitment had improved, and the registered person had introduced a new checking system to ensure full compliance with regulatory requirements. However, on inspection we did find some missing information in two files. This was rectified soon after the inspection. The management and monitoring of people’s risks had improved and people and their relatives told us that they felt safe.
People were supported by well-trained care staff. All care staff had the necessary training to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives told us that they thought the care staff were well trained.
People were treated with kindness and respect. This was validated by the feedback we received from people and their relatives.
People received care and support that was personalised. A new electronic care planning system had been introduced. The registered person, with the support of the external consultant, had re-assessed all of the people who use the service and recorded in depth information regarding their care needs, preferences and wishes. People's rights to make their own decisions were protected. They were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.
People benefited from an improved quality assurance system being in place. This meant that the registered person’s oversight of all the service’s functions, including recruitment, training, medicines management and care planning was now more robust.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was inadequate (report published 27 September 2019) and there were multiple breaches of regulations. At this inspection we found the registered person had made improvements and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations in relation to the service provided to the seven people who currently use the service.
This service has been in Special Measures since 27 September 2019. During this inspection the registered person demonstrated that improvements have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating of inadequate. As part of this inspection we also assessed whether the provider had taken the actions necessary to meet the regulation breaches identified at the last inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.