Archived: Age UK South Staffordshire (Penkridge Resource Centre)

People’s experience of using this service:

•People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been safely recruited. When people required medicines these were administered safely. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and any identified risks were assessed and minimised.

•People consented to their care and were supported by staff who were trained to fulfil their roles effectively. People’s needs were assessed and reviewed to ensure care being delivered was up to date and reflective of their needs.

•People were treated with dignity and respect and involved in decisions about their care.

•People received a personalised service that met their individual needs and they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with any aspects of their care.

•The provider and registered manager had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.

Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection in March 2016 the service was rated as good.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned for future dates.

The service provides personal care to people in their own homes. There were 10 people using the service at the time of this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff knew what constituted abuse and who they should report it to if they thought someone had been abused.

Risks to people were assessed and minimised through the effective use of risk assessment and staff knowledge of people and their risks. There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe. They had been employed using safe recruitment procedures.

Staff had been trained to administer medication.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is designed to protect people who cannot make decisions for themselves or lack the mental capacity to do so. The provider worked within the guidelines of the MCA to ensure that people consented to their care, treatment and support or were supported to consent with their representatives if they lacked capacity.

Care was personalised and met people’s individual needs and preferences. The provider had a complaints procedure and most people knew how to use it.

Staff were supported to fulfil their role effectively. There was a regular programme of training that was relevant to the needs of people, which was kept up to date.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a healthy lifestyle dependent on their specific needs.

When people became unwell staff responded and sought the appropriate support.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. Staff felt supported and motivated to fulfil their role.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe with the care from Age Uk. One person told us: 'I can trust them'.

We saw there were processes in place to assess people's needs and risk assessments had been undertaken to reduce risks to their health and well-being.

People's medication was handled safely.

Is the service effective?

Care was regularly reviewed with people who used the service and their relative.

If people's needs changed, changes to care plans and delivery were implemented.

Is the service caring?

Relatives told us: 'I think they are wonderful, they are willing to go the extra mile for my dad'.

Staff knew people well and had built good relationships with them.

Is the service responsive?

The service had a complaints procedure and people knew how to complain and who to complain to.

When people became unwell staff sought the appropriate external support.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager had implemented and made improvements to systems to monitor the quality of the service.

Staff received individual supervision sessions to discuss their personal development, concerns and feedback on their performance.

Staff had access to training appropriate to supporting the needs of people.

Everyone we spoke with said they were pleased with the care they received. One person said: "I am happy with the care". A relative said: "I am perfectly happy with the service. My relative feels comfortable with the carer. They understand my relative's condition".

People told us that care was provided in the way and at the time they agreed. They said that their wishes and views were discussed with them and a plan of care agreed with them before the service started.

The care people received met their needs. People had regular care workers who provided care in the way they wanted.

People were supported by care workers who were trained and supported. Plans were due to be implemented to provide care workers with regular formal individual supervision and an annual appraisal.

Some systems were in place to monitor the quality of care people received. A record of these checks was not always kept. This meant there was no confirmation that shortfalls had been acted upon. A system was in place to listen to and act upon complaints.

During our inspection we looked at how privacy and dignity of people who use the service was respected. All the people we spoke with were complementary of the staff. One family member said, 'They are very polite, and lovely with me relative.

Staff and relatives we spoke with told us that care plans were available in people's homes and gave staff the necessary information to deliver care. The people we spoke with confirmed the staff were supportive of their family member's care needs.

We asked the staff about their understanding of safeguarding (protecting vulnerable adults). The staff we spoke with confirmed they had received the appropriate training. Staff were able to tell how they would raise concerns if necessary.

We looked at staff personnel files and saw that the necessary checks were made to ensure staff were suitable to do their job, for example, satisfactory criminal records bureau disclosures (CRB) and references.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people could raise concerns or complaints in order to improve the quality of the care received.