Archived: Community Home Care Provider

We last carried out a comprehensive inspection of this service in April 2015 and gave them a rating of ‘Good’ across the five outcome areas. At this inspection we continued to rate them as ‘Good’ across four outcome areas and ‘Requires Improvement’ for the outcome area of ‘Safe’.

This is because the provider had not kept up to date with current guidelines and practice regarding the recording of the administration of medicines. This meant there was a possibility care workers may not be able to account for all the medicines given to people as they did not keep an accurate record of the medicines they supported people with. Therefore there was a risk people may not receive all the medicines prescribed to them.

Notwithstanding the above, people continued to receive a safe service from Community Home Care Providers. Care workers were trained in safeguarding adults at risk and knew what action they should take if they had concerns about any individual. The provider also completed pre-employment checks to ensure as far as possible only suitable people were employed by the agency.

The service continued to have 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.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities with regard to notifying other agencies of significant events which may affect the well-being of people. The service was open and transparent and people told us they felt able to raise any issues or concerns. There was a complaints policy in place which was readily available, if people had any issues to raise with the provider.

The provider had a number of audits and mechanisms in place to continually review the quality of the service. This included quarterly spot checks on care workers and annual questionnaires which helped to identify areas of improvement.

Care workers were supported to undertake their roles. This included an induction period and training which was refreshed regularly. Care workers were also supported with one to one supervision sessions and weekly team meetings to ensure they remained suitable and competent to undertake their work.

People received personalised care that met their needs. People needs were assessed and recorded so care workers were clear about how to support people effectively and safely. These care plans were reviewed regularly and whenever there was a change in people’s circumstances.

The provider planned care so people often had the same care worker. This continuity was welcomed by people who felt comfortable with care workers who understood their needs and routines. This also meant workers were alert to changes in people’s health and could liaise with healthcare professionals accordingly.

People told us the care they received ensured their privacy and dignity. Consent was sought prior to care being provided and people were encouraged to maintain their independence whenever possible. People were given choices about how care was to be provided, this included what to eat and drink. If risks to people’s health were identified, then action was taken to minimise and mitigate adverse effects on people.

People were consulted and involved in decisions about their care and support. People said they were happy with the dignity and respect aspects of their care. Comments included, "I am very happy with the service and the carer I have got", "the staff are respectful and they are very good with my family member", "the carers are very good" and "the carer's are very kind."

The agency had safeguarding adults from abuse procedures in place, staff had received training and they were aware of their responsibilities in respect of reporting any concerns. People we spoke with said they felt safe.

People we spoke with were mainly happy with their current level of care they received from their care workers. Comments included, "The staff are keen and very eager to please", "staff support me for the agreed amount of time", "I am very happy with the arrangements" and "I am very happy with the service."

The service had systems in place to gather the views of people who used the service. People we spoke with knew who to raise concerns with, although some people said staff at the agency's office had not always followed up or responded to all of their queries.

People told us that they were fully involved in drawing up their care plans, that staff always wore their uniforms and identity badges when they visited and that people felt safe with their care workers. People knew how to make a complaint if they wanted to.