• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Rainbow Care Solutions Limited - Redditch

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

3 Aspenwood House, 54-56 Ipsley Street, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 7AR (01527) 585700

Provided and run by:
Rainbow Care Solutions Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

23 and 28 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place on 23 and 28 July 2015. We gave the registered manager 48 hours notice of the inspection. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people who live in their homes or a family members home and we needed to be sure someone would be available at the office.

The provider registered this service with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide personal care and support for people with a range of varying needs including people who were living with dementia. People either lived in the own home or with a relative or friend. At the time of this inspection the agency was providing personal care to about 118 people. This included the provision of a service to a small number of children.

There was a registered manager for this service who was available throughout the 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.

People and their relatives told us they had no concerns about the service provided and people felt safe with the care staff. Care staff and office staff had an awareness of different types of abuse and were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns they had. People told us care staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect and upheld their privacy and dignity. Care staff were aware of the need to gain people’s consent prior to providing care and support.

We found some staff did not have a good command of the English language and for some people who used the service this had created difficulties because they had not been able to make themselves clearly understood. Although the registered manager was aware of these difficulties and had commenced steps to assist care staff in their learning, the issues for people who used the service remained.

Care staff confirmed they received training in order to meet people’s care needs. Care staff received support from the management as needed to assist them do their work. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to provide care staff with up dated information about people’s needs and associated risks.

People and their relatives were aware of how they could raise any concerns or complaints about the service provided. People were listened to and their concerns investigated and acted upon.

Care staff received one to one meetings with a supervisor and spot checks took place to make sure the care they provided met the needs of people they were caring for. Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. However, systems to ensure call times were correct and accurate were not always effective. The registered manager had sought feedback from people, their families and staff members as a means of improvement to the service.

28 November 2013

During a routine inspection

This agency currently provided care for 55 adults in their own homes. During this inspection we spoke on the telephone with four people who used the agency and two relatives. We spoke with three staff who provided care and support and the registered manager at the agency office.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. One person said: 'Overall I'm happy. You get the occasional hiccup in the office, but the girls are brilliant.' Another person said: 'I'm really pleased; I have no problems at all.'

We found consent had been obtained from people before care had been provided. We also found that steps had been taken to ensure that people received individualised care. Care had been planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken that ensured they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

The provider had systems of audit in place to enable them to monitor the quality of the service provided to ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment. The provider had a complaints policy in place and had taken people's complaints seriously. Complaints had been investigated and action had been taken by the provider when necessary.

30 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We inspected the agency office as part of this inspection. We spoke on the telephone with one person who used the service and two relatives. In addition to this we spoke with three members of staff who provided care and support to people who used the service.

We found that people had been involved in making decisions about their care and were satisfied with the care they received from staff. People we spoke with told us they felt safe when receiving care. The relative of one person told us,' I have total confidence in the service'.

Care support plans had been recorded for each person. These plans provided detailed information for staff when they visited people and ensured their individual needs would be met. When we spoke with staff they told us about the care people received and this matched the information in their care support plans.

Staff employed by the service had a good understanding about safeguarding people from abuse and the action they should take if they had any concerns about the people they cared for.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people told us staff were competent and caring.

We saw that arrangements were in place for monitoring the quality of the service and for people who used the service and staff to provide feedback about the service.

3 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We selected eleven people that used the service and contacted them by telephone. When we made the telephone calls we spoke to the person who used the service, their partner or a relative.

People told us they were happy with the care staff and the way in which the agency was run. They felt the care was good, staff were polite, respectful and maintained their dignity. They were able to contact the service easily and any changes to their care or treatment were made timely. They had a small number of regular carers and were provided with a rota of which carer would be attending for the forthcoming week.

We were told that the agency would contact them if their carer was delayed or there was a change to the expected carer. However, two people told us that sometimes a different carer would arrive and they had not always been informed of this by the agency. They said they felt that sometimes the carers swapped their appointments amongst themselves without telling the agency.