Archived: Age UK Rotherham

Updated 10 March 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 January 2016. The inspection was unannounced on the first day. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before our inspection we found no evidence that the provider had completed a provider information return (PIR). The registered manager showed us their completed PIR and told us they had not received a request to submit one but had completed one in preparation. We were sent a copy of this at the time of the inspection. 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

At the time of our inspection there were 22 people who received a service from the agency that was regulated by CQC. We visited people to discuss the care provided and looked at their care records. We spoke with 5 people who used the service on the telephone, 3 relatives and the local authority commissioners.

During our inspection we also spoke with five members of staff, which included care workers, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We looked at records relating to people who used the service and staff, as well as the management of the service. This included reviewing three people’s care records, staff recruitment, training, support files, minutes of meetings, complaints records, policies and procedures and quality assurance records.

Updated 10 March 2016

The inspection took place on 26 and 27 January 2016 and was unannounced on the first day. The second day we visited people who used the service.

Age Uk Rotherham is a care agency and a not for profit organisation. The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. Although it also provided cleaning, gardening and befriending services which are not regulated by CQC. The calls to people who use the service are always a minimum of an hour. At the time of our inspection the service was predominantly supporting older people and people living with dementia. Care and support was co-ordinated from the office, which was based in Rotherham. The registered manager told us they enabled people to continue to be able to live independently in their own homes. They called the care staff enablers.

There was a registered manager at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that people’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced. People who used the service and their relatives that we spoke with told us they had been involved in creating and updating their care plans. The information included in the care records we saw identified people’s individual needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

People who used the service who we spoke with told us the care staff were very good, staff were kind caring and always stayed the required time ensuring care needs were met.

We found that staff we spoke with had an understanding of the legal requirements as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out how to act to support people who do not have the capacity to make some or all decisions about their care.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place. The provider was recruiting staff at the time of our inspection.

Staff had received formal supervision and annual appraisals were due at the time of our inspection. These ensured development and training to support staff to fulfil their roles and responsibilities was identified.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the care coordinator and management they told us that they were listened to. Staff also told us communication was good and they were always made aware of any changes.

People who used the service told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said they would contact the office if they had any problems. People said, the office staff are always available and deal with any issues immediately.

People who used the service had opportunity to give feedback by completing questionnaires which relatives told us they had recently received and were in the process of completing the questionnaire. The registered manager told us the feedback was used to improve the service provision.

The provider had a system to monitor the quality of the service provided. This was effective and identified areas for further improvement.