Archived: Loddon Alliance

We spoke with the registered manager, one agency worker, four support staff, four relatives of people who used the service and four people who received care from the service.

The people who used the service that we spoke with told us the staff were alright and treated them well. They said they could choose what they wanted and staff did not stop them doing things they wanted to. They would tell a support worker if someone upset them. When asked if they would change anything about the service they all said no, except for one person who expressed a preference for one of the two support workers they were supported by.

Relatives of people who used the service told us the staff were caring, arrived on time usually or told them if they would be late. They said they communicated well, involved them in care planning and kept them informed of any health changes. People's relatives also told us they had no complaints but felt the organisation was approachable. They said they would feel free to raise any concerns they had and felt that they would be listened to.

All of the relatives we spoke to told us they had not received quality questionnaires, except one relative, who said it had arrived that day. None of the relatives we spoke to had received feedback from the agency as to what quality issues had arisen from questionnaires and what the organisation was going to do about them to improve quality.

During discussions with staff, the agency worker told us they had sufficient information from the office and from records at the person's home to meet the needs of the people they worked with. Staff told us they had an induction, training and supervision, were provided with enough information to provide appropriate care and felt supported to do their job. One staff member refused to speak to us.

We saw that where people received any care they were asked for their consent and where people did not have capacity to consent the provider had procedures to facilitate acting in accordance within legal requirements.

We found that people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights and there were sufficient procedures in place to plan for all foreseeable emergencies relevant to the current support provided.

We noted that the service had completed pre-employment checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service, had records of the staff's photographic proof of identity, qualifications, interview and contracts, and there were two references. However, we found that reference requirements for all the staff files sampled contained insufficient evidence about suitability to work with the client group, vulnerable adults.

We found that although the health and safety of people was reviewed and audited, there was no quality assurance system operating to record the findings of quality questionnaires, analyse the results, identify and record action to improve quality and feed back to the people who use the service, and the provider did not always protect people as they had not completed disciplinary action or followed up disclosure and barring action required, following disciplinary hearings.

We saw that the provider had measures in place to help safeguard people from abuse. Staff had received training and they had the skills and knowledge they needed to meet people's needs for assistance in the right way. We saw that quality checks were completed to help ensure that people consistently received a good standard of service.

All of the seven people with whom we spoke gave us positive feedback about the service. One of them said, 'I like staff and they're always there for me because I need them around and they help me how I like.'