Archived: Care Companions Limited - 38a High Street

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

.

Effective systems were not in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents. This meant that the service did not have an adequate system of service improvement.

A process for staff supervision was in place and staff were supported to undertake training relative to the needs of the people they were caring for.

Staff had undertaken training relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and mental capacity issues had been discussed during some staff supervision sessions.

Is the service effective?

People's initial care needs were assessed when they started to receive care, and plans of care were developed. These plans of care were not always updated to reflect people's changing care requirements.

People who used the service and their relatives told us that they were very happy with the standard of care they received. They told us that the provider was responsive and that care was designed and delivered to meet people's individual needs. People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with the relatives of three people being supported by the service, and with one person who used the service. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'The staff are always on time', 'The programme of care is an individualised programme designed around my relative's needs.' One person who used the service told us, 'They are fabulous; they have given me my life back.'

When speaking with staff it was clear that they cared for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We reviewed the records of complaints and found that they had been investigated and responded to in line with the provider's complaints policy.

People using the service and their relatives had completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

The service had recorded the details of accidents and incidents that had occurred but we found that whilst they had investigated the cause of accident and incident they had not documented their improvement actions.

Is the service well-led?

We found that regular staff meetings had taken place and the records showed that the issues discussed related to how the service was run and how care had been delivered.

The service had a quality assurance system. However, records showed that incidents identified and actions put in place to prevent re occurrence had not always been documented.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

We found that systems and processes had been implemented to improve audits to monitor the quality of the service being provided. We saw feedback from a person using the service comment, "I am very happy with the service provided." Another person commented, "Staff are reliable and always turn up on time."

We looked to see if improvement had been made following our previous inspection in March 2013.

Care was planned and personalised. Risk assessments were in place so that staff had the information they needed to meet people's identified needs. One person told us, "I find the staff very good".

Requirements relating to staff employed by the agency were met. One member of staff told us, "I enjoy my job and I feel that the visits to people give me the time needed to meet their needs".

We saw some systems in place to audit and monitor the quality of the service being provided but these were not effective and further improvement was needed.

Improvement had been made to records we sampled and those we asked for were available for us to look at.

People were involved in their care and were encouraged to do things for themselves as far as possible.

Some care plans were personalised and most risk assessments were in place so that staff had the information they needed to meet people's identified needs.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded against harm.

Staff were supported, supervised and trained in their roles. One staff member told us, "I enjoy my job and supporting people with dementia, giving them time to express themselves and sharing memories together.'

We saw a system in place so that people could raise a concern or make a complaint about the services that they received. One person using the service told us, "I have no concerns, everything is ok".

We saw that some records were missing and could not be located and some were not being completed as required.

We saw some systems in place to audit and monitor the quality of the service being provided.