Archived: Style Healthcare

Updated 25 May 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 was planned to check 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 was carried out over three days on the 11, 12 and 13 April 2016.

In line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies this inspection was announced three days prior to our visit to ensure the registered manager or other responsible person would be available to assist with the inspection.

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. Following our inspection visit to the location’s office we spoke on the telephone with one service user, three relatives and three members of care staff in order to obtain their opinions about the service Style Healthcare provided.

Before the inspection we reviewed the previous Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection report about the service and notifications that we had received from the service. We also contacted the local authority commissioners to seek their views about the service but did not receive a response prior to our inspection.

Part of our information gathering included a request to the provider to complete and return to us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a document that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and any improvements they plan to make. On this occasion, we did not request a PIR before our visit.

We examined five people’s care records including their the medicine administration records, the recruitment files for four members of care staff and the supervision, appraisal and training records for all staff and records relating to the management of the service such as auditing records.

Updated 25 May 2016

This inspection took place on the 11, 12 and 13 April 2015. Before we inspected the service we contacted the provider to make sure a responsible person would be available to assist with the inspection.

The service was previously inspected in September 2014 when breaches of legal requirements were found. At that inspection we found the service was not meeting three of the essential standards and regulations that we assessed. We found that people were not fully protected against the risk of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care by means of carrying out an assessment of needs and planning care to meet people’s individual needs. We also found the provider did not have effective recruitment procedures in place and the provider did not have effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risk relating to health, welfare and safety. Following this inspection the provider sent us an action plan to tell us the improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we found that some improvements had been made.

When we visited the service there was a registered manager in post although they were not present during this 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.

Style Healthcare is registered to provide personal care and support to people living in their own home. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people using the service.

During this inspection we identified six breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to staff training, staff recruitment, staff supervision, care plans lacking detail, medicine management and the lack of systems to assess and monitor the service delivered to people; you can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

From looking at the training records, speaking with the office manager and staff we found there were gaps in staff training. This meant some staff may not be appropriately trained and skilled to meet the needs of the people receiving a service.

Recruitment processes still required improvements to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

Care plans in relation to medication administration were vague and staff had not undertaken competency assessments on completion of medication training to ensure they were suitably skilled and competent in medication administration.

Not all staff were receiving regular supervision or annual appraisals.

Care plans looked at did not contain enough detailed information to direct staff members on how to provide care and support for people taking into account the person’s personal preferences and encouraging independence.

We recommended the service considers obtaining a copy of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 code of practice and in accordance with the MCA consent to a care plan is only signed for by a person who has the legal authority to do so.

Due to the shortfalls found during this inspection process the quality assurance processes need to be more robust.

We were told by relatives of people receiving a service and staff that there was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere between staff, people receiving a service and their relatives.

We were told by the person we spoke with who was receiving services and relatives we spoke with that staff were kind and respectful to people when attending to their needs.

People, who we asked, told us they felt safe and comfortable when being supported by the care staff.

Those staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities to protect the wellbeing of the people who used the service and were clear about the action they would take if an allegation of abuse was made to them or if they suspected that abuse had occurred.

People said they knew who to contact if they wanted to make a complaint and felt they would be listened to and action would be taken. However we recommended that all informal concerns/issues raised are formally recorded, investigated and proportionate action taken in response so that there is a clear system to review and learn from issues raised.