Archived: CRG Homecare - Salford

Updated 26 November 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 13 October 2015 and was announced. We provided 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure management were available at their Salford office to facilitate our inspection. We also contacted people via the phone on the 19 and 20 October to obtain their view of the services provided. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed information we held about the service in the form of statutory notifications received from the service and any safeguarding or whistleblowing incidents which may have occurred.

At the time of our inspection there were 117 people living in the Bolton, Trafford and Rochdale areas who used the service. The service employed 30 members of staff, which included two field care supervisors, two coordinators, an apprentice and the branch manager. During the inspection, we spent time at the office and looked at various documentation including care plans and staff personnel files.

We spent time visiting five people who used the service in their own homes to ask them and their relatives about the service they received and to review records kept at the home. In total we spoke to 26 people about the service, which included people who used the service or their relatives. 16 people were spoken to by our expert by experience via telephone interviews. We also spent time speaking to 10 members of staff, which included seven members of care staff, the branch manager, one field care supervisor and one coordinator.

Updated 26 November 2015

This was an announced inspection carried out on the 13 October 2015. We also contacted people who used the service via phone on the 19 and 20 October 2015 to obtain their views on the quality of services provided.

CRG Homecare - Salford is a domiciliary care agency, which provides personal care to people in their own homes, who require support in order to remain independent. The office is located in Clippers Quay, Salford and services are currently provided to people residing in the Bolton, Trafford and Rochdale area.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 registered manager was not present during the inspection, however the local branch manager was present throughout.

This service had not been previously inspected, as they were newly registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe when the care workers were in their home and felt that their possessions and property were safe.

We found the service had suitable safeguarding procedures in place, which were designed to protect vulnerable people from abuse and the risk of abuse.

We found people were also protected against the risks of abuse, because the service had robust recruitment procedures in place.

People we spoke with who were administered medication by staff told us their medication was administered on time and appropriately. We looked at how the service managed people’s medicines and found that suitable arrangements were in place to ensure the service was safe.

We looked at how the service ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People we spoke with told us that calls were generally on time, but there were also late calls at times. Some people we spoke with told us that their regular care staff arrived on time or within a reasonable time, but calls from unfamiliar care staff were often late, for instance at weekends or when covering for sickness.

When calls were significantly late, some people told us the office rang them to inform them, and others said this did not always happen and they had to ring the office on occasions to query late calls.

People we spoke with told us they thought the care staff who supported them were well trained and competent to do their jobs.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they received training both at induction and then annually through refresher training.

We found that staff received regular supervision, which enabled managers to assess the development needs of their staff and to address training and personal needs in a timely manner.

We found that before any care was provided, they service obtained written consent from the person who used the service or their representative. We were able to verify this by speaking to people and from reviewing ten care files.

People we spoke with told us they had been able to make some choices about their care, such as the times of calls, what to eat and how their personal care was delivered.

People we spoke with thought the care staff were kind, caring, patient and respectful.

People also told us that care staff respected their dignity and privacy, as did relatives we spoke with.

People could recall setting up their care plan and felt fully involved in determining their care needs.

Some people we spoke with and their relatives felt that the care and support they received was not always responsive to their needs. A number of people who used the service told us they did not receive support from regular care workers and they often had care from new or unfamiliar care staff.

We found the service had systems in place to routinely listen to people’s experience, concerns and complaints. The service sent out questionnaires to people who used the service and also undertook telephone service quality checks to ascertain any concerns or issues.

Care plans within care files provided clear guidance to staff on the level of support required and were regularly reviewed. We found people who used the service had care plans in place with copies held at both the office and in their homes.

The majority of people we spoke with said they were happy with the service, however eight people we spoke with told us they would not recommend the service. This was because they felt there was a high turnover of staff and mismanagement of calls and rotas for staff.

From speaking to staff we found that the branch manager promoted an open and transparent culture amongst staff. Staff felt valued and supported in their role.

We found the service undertook a range of checks to monitor the quality service delivery. These included telephone service quality checks and unannounced ‘spot checks,’ where people were invited to comment on the quality of the service they received. However, the service was not able to effectively demonstrate that they had identified concerns associated with reported late calls and the issues around continuity of staff, which we identified during the inspection.

The service had policies and procedures in place, which covered all aspects of the service delivery. The policies and procedures included safeguarding, medication, whistleblowing and recruitment.