Archived: Allen Auxillary Limited

Allen Auxiliary Limited is a small domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to adults living in their own homes who live in an area of Chichester, West Sussex. People who receive a service include those living with frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age, mobility needs and health conditions.

At the time of this inspection the agency was providing a service to 10 people, nine of who received personal care. Visits ranged from half an hour to over one hour. The frequency of visits range from one visit per week to four visits per day depending on people’s individual needs.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. The registered manager is also the owner of the agency. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 previously inspected the service in May 2015 when it was rated ‘Good’ overall and in all domains apart from the ‘Well Led’ domain which was rated as ‘Requires Improvement.’ One breach of regulation was made for incomplete records. In response to this the provider sent us an action plan that detailed the steps that would be taken to achieve compliance. At this inspection we found that steps had been taken by the registered manager and that the breach of regulation was met.

Since our last in May 2015 steps had been taken to ensure records were accurate and up to date. In addition to people now having personalised care plans other documentation had also been reviewed and expanded to ensure it could be used to monitor the quality of service provided to people. This included the expansion of home visit audit forms and questionnaires sent to people to obtain their views.

As at our previous inspection, everyone that we spoke with praised the registered manager, care workers who visited them and expressed satisfaction with the service they received. There was a positive culture at the agency that was open, inclusive and empowering. People said that they were aware who to speak to in order to raise concerns. The agency had a complaints procedure in place to respond to people’s concerns and to drive improvement.

People told us that they felt safe with the care workers who supported them. Care workers received training and were knowledgeable in recognising signs of potential abuse and the relevant reporting procedures. Recruitment checks were completed to ensure care workers were safe to support people.

People said that they received care visits at the agreed times and that care workers always stayed for the full allocated time. Care workers also said that they had sufficient time to care for people safely.

Safe medicine systems were in place. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and action taken to reduce any harm to people. Care workers understood the procedures that should be followed in the event of an emergency or if a person was to have an accident or to fall.

People said that the registered manager and care workers had the appropriate skills to meet their needs and that they provided effective care. Both the registered manager and the care workers were knowledgeable about the people they supported. Care workers received support and training that equipped them with the skills and knowledge needed to care for people.

People were happy with the support they received to eat and drink and to manage any health needs they had. Care workers were provided with information before they started to care for people and were kept informed when people’s needs changed.

Both the registered manager and care workers understood people’s rights to be involved in decisions about their care and were able to explain what consent to care meant in practice. People were supported to express their views and to be involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People said that they were treated with kindness and respect by the care workers who supported them. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. The registered manager and care workers understood the importance of building trusting relationships with people and went out of their way to do this.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records looked at.

If you'd like to see the evidence that supports our summary you can read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Despite our best efforts we were only able to speak with one person using the service. They told us they felt safe when staff delivered personal care to them in their home. They added: "Before all this started I was dreading it but X (the member of staff) has been brilliant".

We looked at records relating to staff training and found that staff were trained to cope with emergencies they were likely to encounter in their work. We spoke with two members of staff who were able to explain what they would do if an emergency arose.

Is the service effective?

With permission, we observed care being delivered in one person's home. We found the member of staff to be respectful and encouraging to the person. We saw the member of staff encouraging the person to be as independent as possible whilst providing care.

Relatives we spoke with spoke highly of the agency. One relative told us "They're (the staff) very respectful. It's very encouraging to see".

Is the service caring?

The member of staff we observed was gentle and treated the person with dignity and empathy. Both members of staff we spoke with gave good answers when we asked how they involved people in their care. The two relatives we spoke with told us the care was very good. One relative said "The care is absolutely fantastic".

Is the service responsive?

Despite the fact that some care records were not updated regularly we found that the care provided by the agency met people's needs. Regular staff meetings ensured that staff had the opportunity to raise issues concerning people with the manager.

Relatives we spoke with were very happy with the way care was delivered and the person we managed to speak with told us "I do what I want when I want".

Is the service well-led?

We saw evidence of good care being provided by the agency. However we have asked the provider what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to the way the service is run. This is because although the manager had high standards of care and supervised staff regularly, they did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of some aspects of care.

The provider employed two care workers. We spoke with one of them. They said they had received sufficient training to undertake their role and received good support from their manager. We saw documented evidence that staff received regular training and supervision.

We looked at the care records of three people. We saw evidence that people's needs had been assessed and that care plans were in place. The people we spoke with said they had a copy of their care plan which reflected the care that was delivered.

During this inspection we found that people who used the service had been asked for their views about their care and treatment.