Archived: Diamond Care Services Ltd

Updated 16 April 2019

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 08 January 2019 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice as we needed to be sure that someone would be available to facilitate the inspection.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector from the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

We were informed in November 2018 that the registered manager had left the service. Prior to this we sent a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give us some key information about the service. However, this was not returned to the CQC by the registered manager. The nominated individual contacted the CQC to inform us that the PIR was unavailable for them to complete.

Before our inspection we contacted the local authority commissioning team, the Clinical Commission Group (CCG) and the local authority safeguarding team to gain their views and opinions of the service. We also contacted Healthwatch Bolton to see if they had any information they wished to share with us. Healthwatch England is the national consumer champion in health and care. No concerns were raised by these agencies.

We also reviewed other information we held about this service. For example, the last inspection report, complaints and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We had not received any notifications from this service. This will be addressed separately from this report.

As part of the inspection we spoke with the nominated individual, the general manager, a member of the office staff and three care staff and two people who used the service.

We looked at two care files, three staff files and other records. For examples some evidence of the staff shadowing checks.

Updated 16 April 2019

The inspection took place on 08 January 2019 and was announced. The last inspection of this service was on 30 June 2016 where the service was rated as good.

This service is a domiciliary care agency and provides personal care and support to people living in their own houses in the community. It provides a service to younger adults, people living with dementia, older people, people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disabilities and sensory impairment.

On the day of the inspection there were 15 people using the service. The service was providing personal care to seven people and assisting eight people with domestic tasks. For example, social activities, meal preparation and prompting with medication. The office is situated on a main road in the Farnworth area of Bolton.

There was no 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.

People who used the service felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff files showed the recruitment system to be satisfactory and people employed had been checked with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people who currently used the service.

Electronic call logging in systems were not in were in place to monitor that staff had arrived at a person's home or stayed for the allocated time. Staff wrote on the daily log sheets times of arrival and departure.

The service had a safeguarding policy and procedure. Staff spoken with had received training in safeguarding. However, this was some time ago and there was no evidence of updates or certificates of when this training had been completed.

There was no evidence that demonstrated that the medicines systems were safe, and staff had undertaken appropriate training in medicines administration.

There were no records of an induction programme for new staff. However, we saw that new staff shadowed an experienced member of staff until they felt confident in their role.

We looked at the care plans for two people. The care plans we looked at showed that independence was promoted, and people told us their dignity and privacy were respected. However, some of the care plans needed reviewing and updating.

Care files we looked at had people's choices for their care and support recorded. Risk assessments and care plans were not reviewed on a regular basis to reflect changes to the initial care plan. Activities, such as accompanying people to go out in to the community were facilitated by the service where possible.

There was no evidence of staff receiving training in the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). However, we did see some evidence of consent from people who used the service agreeing to their care and support.

People who used the service told us the staff were kind and caring. Staff we spoke with were positive about their jobs and were complimentary about the interim management arrangements of the service.

There was a service user guide which included relevant information about the service. However, this required updating.

Feedback was sought from people who used the service. However, this was informal and during home visits. There was evidence of only one telephone monitoring call in 2018 taking place. There was an up to date complaints policy and procedure and complaints were dealt with appropriately.

There was no evidence of formal staff supervisions or appraisals. Staff meetings were not held. We saw no records of regular observations of staff competence which should be undertaken by the management.

There was no evidence of quality monitoring or audits to assess the quality of the service and care delivered.

We saw there were some extracts of policies available in the staff handbook. However, these need to be more comprehensive to provide staff with guidance and relevant contact names and telephone numbers. We were informed that the main policy and procedures file was missing.