Background to this inspection
Updated
28 February 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Service and service type
This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats.
The provider of the service was registered with the Care Quality Commission. The provider was also the registered manager. This means that they are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that the provider would be in the office to support the inspection.
Inspection activity started on 17 January 2020 and ended on 24 January 2020. We visited the office location on 17 January 2020 and 22 January 2020.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with five people who used the service and four relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager, care worker, administrator and recruitment lead. We also emailed 19 staff who we had not spoken to as part of the site visit to request their feedback. We received six responses.
We reviewed a range of records. These included five people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records and any additional intelligence we received.
Updated
28 February 2020
About the service
Dailycare4U is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to 35 people at the time of the inspection.
Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
The registered office was located on the high street of a small market town.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
At our last inspection we found that Dailycare4U had made significant improvements. However these improvements had not been fully embedded. At this inspection we found the service had continued to improve and many of the systems and processes they had introduced, were now embedded.
We identified two areas at this inspection which required some additional improvement, and discussed these with the provider. We did not find that anyone was at risk of harm.
People and staff were generally complimentary about the training staff had received. However, we were unable to fully assess the level of training new staff received before being able to lone work. The provider maintained two different systems for recording training data, which when combined did not provide a clear picture of what training new staff had received.
Risks to people safety had been considered but records relating to the maintenance of equipment were minimal. The provider immediately made the necessary improvements. However, the governance systems in place had not highlighted the need for more robust oversight.
People were protected from abuse by staff who understood safeguarding procedures. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and call times were actively monitored. People received their medicine as prescribed and were protected from the risk of infection.
The provider could evidence that lessons had been learnt when things went wrong and were aware of their duty of candour.
People’s care needs were assessed, and detailed care plans were developed. These provided staff with the information they needed to offer support, although, one person did tell us they had to request a review after their needs had changed. People were supported to maintain healthy lives and encouraged to eat and drink a balanced diet, as agreed in their care plan.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were treated well and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. Staff supported people’s independence by only completing the tasks people needed assistance with.
Care plans were personalised to each person’s needs and information was made accessible for people when required. Staff supported people to maintain relationships and supported social activities when requested.
People had access to a complaint’s procedure, but any concerns had been resolved before they became a formal complaint. The provider was not supporting anyone with end of life care at the time of inspection.
People were complimentary about the care received and staff felt well supported by the provider. People were engaged with the service and we saw evidence of continuous learning and improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 14 February 2019).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.