Archived: Contract Care Agency Limited

Updated 18 February 2015

We visited the agency on 8 July and 28 July 2014. We spent time reading the documents kept in the office. We looked at six care records, record audits and spoke with four members of staff. We spoke with five people who used the service and 12 relatives. We spoke with the manager and looked at two staff files and a number of policies and procedures.

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience has personal experiences of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before our inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the domiciliary care agency. We asked the provider to complete 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 that they plan to make. We examined any notifications that were received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted the commissioners of the service to obtain their views on the service and how it was being run.

During the inspection we spoke to five people who use the service, twelve relatives, four care staff and the registered manager.

Updated 18 February 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 was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Contract Care Agency Limited provides care to people in their own homes. There were 28 people who used the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection visit was announced and this meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the agency’s office 48 hours before we arrived.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People told us they felt safe and trusted the people who cared for them. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure people who used the service were safeguarded against the risk of abuse. Appropriate risk assessments had been undertaken to make sure the environment was safe and secure for staff to attend to people’s needs.

People were supported by appropriately recruited and trained staff who had the required skills to provide effective and compassionate care.

People were supported to take informed risks. Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, the Mental Capacity (MCA) Act 2005 was being adhered to. For example, we saw where relevant people had a mental capacity assessment on their file to ensure where able they would participate in the planning of their care.

There were processes in place to ensure people’s preferences and needs were recorded in their care plans and staff were following the plans of care. Records we looked at showed us that the risks around nutrition and hydration were monitored and managed by staff with guidance from other healthcare professionals to ensure each person who used the service received adequate food and drink.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided by the service. They told us the staff were kind and respectful at all times. Staff we spoke with told us they had clear values to ensure people were treated with dignity and respect.

People were able to express their views by completing a service questionnaire about how the service was run.

People had access an advocacy service. Advocates are trained professionals who support, enable and empower people to speak up.

We found staff were able to describe how they had responded to what was important to individuals and how they met their needs. We saw systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided, but they were not robust enough to highlight concerns.