We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rift Solutions Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rift Solutions Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
We last inspected Caremark (Leeds) in January 2017 when the service was rated 'Requires Improvement' overall. The key questions Effective and Well led were rated Requires Improvement. We identified one breach of regulation. We found that the provider's policy was not always followed to ensure mandatory training was arranged in a timely way. This had also been a breach of regulation at the previous inspection. We issued a warning notice for Regulation 18 Staffing of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 to the provider telling them they must improve.
Following our January 2017 inspection, the provider sent us an action plan detailing the changes and improvements they intended to make to improve the quality of service provided to people who used the service. We took this into account when planning this inspection to ensure these actions had been completed. At this inspection, we found the provider had made all the required improvements and addressed all our concerns that had been highlighted last time we visited.
Caremark (Leeds) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It can provide a service to people who may be living with dementia, younger disabled adults and children.
At the time of the inspection, 111 people were using the service. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Everyone using the service were being provided with 'personal care'.
There was 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.
Staff received effective training to meet people's needs. A comprehensive induction and training programme was completed by all staff. The provider had systems in place to ensure staff received support. This included supervision, observations of practice and annual appraisals. A detailed assessment was carried out to assess people's needs and preferences prior to them receiving a service. People were supported with their healthcare and nutritional needs as appropriate.
People using the service told us they felt safe. The staff we spoke with had a good understanding of safeguarding, whistleblowing and how to report any concerns. Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work with people. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and had their competency checked. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to maintain their independence and receive care safely. Staff understood best practice for reducing the risk of infection.
Staff knew people's needs well and people told us they liked staff and had developed good relationships with them. People and their relatives were involved as much as possible in the care planning process and their views were acted upon. People's dignity and privacy was respected and upheld and staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
People had access to a complaints procedure and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon. Robust quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the service and make any improvements where required. This included seeking and responding to feedback from people and their relatives in relation to the standard of care and support they or their relative received.
At our last inspection in May 2015 we identified a breach of regulations. We found staff were not given adequate time to travel between calls, and training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) had not been effective, and mandatory training had not been updated in line with the provider’s policy.. We asked the provider to send an action plan showing the improvements they intended to make. At this inspection we found training in the MCA had been effective, however the provider’s policy was not always followed to ensure mandatory training was arranged in a timely way.
There was a registered manager in post when we inspected. 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.
Staff told us they usually had sufficient time to travel between calls, and people who used the service gave mostly positive feedback about their calls happening on time. Staff said out of hours support was always available when they needed it.
People told us they felt safe using Caremark (Leeds). We saw appropriate background checks were made when new staff were recruited, and staff understood their responsibilities under safeguarding. Staff said they were introduced to people before they started to provide care and support.
We saw risks were well managed, and staff understood how to ensure these risks were minimised. Thorough induction and training was provided, however some refresher training was not delivered annually as stated in the provider’s policy. Staff told us they felt supported, and had regular supervision and an annual appraisal.
Care plans contained clear documentation relating to people’s capacity to make decisions and their consents for various aspects of their care and support. Staff were knowledgeable about how to help people maintain their independence and their rights to refuse any support offered.
People told us staff were caring, and we saw clear guidance in care plans to enable staff to provide support in line with peoples’ preferences. Staff showed a good knowledge of the people they supported, and understood how to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.
Care plans were reviewed regularly, and we saw people were involved in this process. Staff received timely updates to ensure they were aware of any changes in peoples’ needs.
We found complaints were well managed, and saw the provider received a range of compliments from people, their relatives and health professionals.
Staff told us they felt listened to and gave good feedback about the registered manager. We saw there were processes in place to monitor and improve the service, however found this had not always identified gaps on Medicines Administration Records (MARs). We saw the registered manager had already begun to take action in response to this.
We identified one continued breach of regulations during this inspection. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the end of the full version of this report.
This inspection was announced and took place on 15 April 2015.
Caremark (Leeds) provides domiciliary care services to people in their own homes in Leeds. At the time of our inspection 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.
We spoke with 16 people who used the service and several told us staff were often late or were unable to stay the full length of time allocated. There were various reasons for this including, traffic and having to stay longer at their previous call. Some people did not mind staff being late and others did. One relative had raised concerns with the registered manager; however, this was yet to be resolved.
Not all staff had received up to date appropriate training to enable them to deliver care and support to people who used the service safely. The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and to report on what we find. Some staff had a basic understanding of the MCA 2005; however, others were unsure what it was. We found there was no specific training on MCA 2005 and staff we spoke with told us it was not covered in safeguarding training.
People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe with Caremark staff.
Medicines were administered as prescribed and the records we saw confirmed this. Staff told us they felt confident they were able to administer medicines safely.
Risks were identified in people’s care plans and had been updated regularly. We saw evidence of changes to people’s care plans when there had been changes in people’s health care needs. People were supported to maintain nutritional needs. People we spoke with told us staff were kind to them and said they were always treated with dignity and respect.
Care plans contained detailed information to assist staff in delivering care to people effectively. We found care plans were up to date and where possible had been written with input from people who used the service.
The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and people who used the service were given the opportunity to express their opinions of the service by completing surveys and telephone reviews.
During the inspection we identified some breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Following our last inspection of this location, carried out in August 2013, we were sent an action plan. This explained how the care provider would ensure people were safeguarded against possible abuse and how they would notify the Care Quality Commission of certain incidents, within the required time frames.
We spoke to 18 people who used the service, one person said, 'I have had the same carers for quite a long time. Two out of the four have left but they have been replaced by two others who come regularly. The new ones soon pick up on what has to be done. I am satisfied with the help I get.' Another person said, "Every question I was asked about what I needed was talked through so that I got the help I needed. It was really helpful because I was able to ask for the care worker to come to me at times which suited the two of us.'
Since our last inspection the provider had implemented a new safeguarding procedure with a flow chart detailing how staff should report incidents and to whom. There was also a whistle blowing policy for staff to report matters of concern. During this inspection we spoke with five members of staff who told us they had recently completed further safeguarding training. We looked at training records which confirmed this.
Prior to this inspection, we checked our database for records of any incidents notified to the Care Quality Commission. We saw the provider had sent seven notifications to the Care Quality Commission.
A person who used the service said, "The girls are marvellous, but the office tell them they have to be at a place at a certain time but don't give them the time to get there." Another person said, "They don't always stay the full length of time, I'm supposed to have 45 minutes but quite often they leave after 30 minutes, but I don't mind." Someone else said, "They always arrive on time and stay the full length of time, the girls will do anything for me."
The agency had appropriate procedures with respect to safeguarding vulnerable adults. However, three incidents had been reported to the agency which had not been referred to the local authority safeguarding team.
We looked at five staff records during our visit to the service. The records showed staff had completed an application form and provided a photograph. There were two written references for each staff member and a full employment history.
We saw care plans were regularly reviewed and changes were made to people's care packages when necessary. The care records were audited regularly by management to ensure all information contained in them was current.
We looked at some of the provider's records during our visit and noted information about four incidents which should have been notified to the Care Quality Commission.
People told us that they had copies of their care plans and confirmed that they were always involved in any care planning with the provider. People were overall positive about the service they received and the staff who provided the service. Comments from people included, 'The service is brilliant'; 'Carers are superb and 'Care that staff provide is exceptional."
We spoke with seven care workers and they told us they enjoyed working for the provider. Care staff were able to tell us about how they met the different needs of people. They told us about the training they received to make sure they were able to care for peoples care needs.