• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Newmarket (Homecare) DCA

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

2nd Floor Rookery House, Guineas Shopping Centre, Newmarket, Suffolk, CB8 8EQ (01638) 601602

Provided and run by:
Care UK Limited

All Inspections

27 January 2015 and 17 February 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place between 27 January and 19 February 2015. The initial visit was unannounced.

The service provides care to people who live in their own home. At the time of our inspection there were 152 people with a variety of care needs who used the service.

There was a manager in place but they were not registered with the Care Quality Commission.

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.

The provider had a safeguarding adults policy for staff that gave guidance on the identification and reporting of suspected abuse. Care workers were aware of how to report suspected abuse or concerns for people’s welfare externally.

Risks were not always assessed prior to the service providing care. This included risks to the individual receiving care and environmental risks. Where risks had been assessed these were not reviewed regularly to ensure they were up to date and reflected the current situation.

There were insufficient care workers to support people safely. The service had regularly missed calls to provide care to people due to insufficient numbers of care workers. The manager told us that the service was recruiting care workers and using agency staff. However, we saw that this had not met the service’s staffing needs and the service had not ensured that people’s needs were met.

People’s safety had been compromised in the management of their medicines. Care workers were observed to administer medicines and this was not recorded. Medicine administration records were not audited to check if people had received their medicines. The service was using two medicines policies and this was causing care workers to be confused as to their responsibilities.

People and their relatives gave some positive feedback about the care workers that provided care, however care workers had not received refresher training to ensure they could meet the needs of people who used the service. Where care workers had been subject to an investigation into their care practice and behaviour this had not been recorded effectively and as a result we could not see that the appropriate actions had been taken.

Three people did not have care plans in place and this had resulted in them not receiving the care and support they required. For example not being supported with having sufficient to eat and drink and with access to other healthcare professionals.

People and their relatives told us they were not involved in the planning of their care and support. They did not feel that the service listened to their views. They told us that when they did contact the service their calls were not always returned. They also told us that they did not feel that if they raised concerns these would be responded to.

The service had some systems in place to monitor the quality of service. However, we saw that these were not always effective. We also saw that where audits had identified deficiencies these were not always addressed.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 in multiple regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

5 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 05 July 2013. We visited the office and spoke with five staff, the manager and area manager. We looked at four records of people who used the service which told us what their needs were and how care staff should meet them. On the 09 July 2013 we visited seven people in their own homes accompanied by a team leader. We spoke with people about the service they received and looked at their care records. We did 14 telephone interviews with people who used the service and spoke with four care staff.

We identified significant risks to one person who used the service and this was discussed with the manager who took immediate action to review the situation and ensured the persons safety. The service carried out regular reviews of people's needs which ensured the care and support provided by staff was appropriate and met the expressed needs of people who used the service. Two people told us they were not happy with the time of the calls provided and said they were not informed when care staff were running late. Two people told us they had raised concerns with the office about specific care staff and said office staff had been proactive in dealing with these concerns.

One person told us, 'I have a small team of regular people who are kind, considerate and treat me with dignity and respect. The staff are well trained and I feel safe in their hands.' Another person told us, 'They go the extra mile, nothing is too much trouble and they always ask me if there is anything else I need.' We looked at people's care plans which were informative and gave a summary of the person's day. Records included some past history about the person and their family. These had been completed by the person or a close family member involved in care giving.

The service had robust staff recruitment and selection procedures in place. New staff were given a comprehensive staff induction and were supported by experienced staff when first started work. This meant that there were systems in place which supported staff and ensured they had the necessary skills and competencies. Staff practice was regularly observed through spot checks whilst working in people's homes and one to one supervisions. They received annual training updates which ensured their knowledge was up to date. There were systems in place that monitored staff's performance and development. This meant the service appropriately supported staff and enabled them to carry out their duties effectively and ensure they could meet people's needs.

12 June 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency as part of a targeted inspection programme of domiciliary care agencies with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they can make choices about their care. The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience, who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

We used postal surveys, telephone interviews and home visits to people who use the service and to their main carers (relatives or friends) to gain views about the service.

We visited and spoke with four people who use the service. We spoke with 15 other people on the phone. Ten people responded in the survey and gave their opinion on the quality of the service. Eight relatives also commented about the quality of service in the survey. All but one response stated that people found their care to be good or excellent.

People felt that their dignity was respected. One person specifically told us: 'They call me by my Christian name, this is how they know me.' All people stated that staff helped them in the way they wanted. A person told us that care workers use the phrase 'Would you mind' when they carried out set tasks they were instructed to do.

All people we contacted felt safe. All of them confirmed that they knew how to report any concerns they might have.

Most people felt that staff were well trained and used their knowledge to deliver safe care for people. Staff spoken with confirmed that the training records we saw were accurate and that staff attended all their training.

People explained to us that the service regularly checked their satisfaction about the quality of service.