The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Homebased Care (UK) Ltd - Erdington

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Britannic House, 2A Harrison Road, Birmingham, West Midlands, B24 9AA (0121) 373 3633

Provided and run by:
Homebased Care (UK) Limited

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile
Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

9 September 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook an announced inspection of Homebased Care – Erdington office on 9 September 2015. We told the provider that we were going to visit 48 hours before our visit. This was because the service provides domiciliary care and we wanted to be sure that staff would be available.

Following our last inspection on 2 and 19 February 2015 we found that people were at risk of not having their needs met due to late and missed calls. Also we found significant shortfalls in the way the service was being managed. As a result we took enforcement action and issued two warning notices to the registered provider. Although progress had been made some further improvements were needed.

Homebased Care – Erdington provides care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service provided care to 120 people in their own homes.

People had been involved in the planning of their care and received care and support in line with their plan of care. People’s needs were met because they received care at the times they had agreed. People were supported to take their medicines and received food and drink at the times agreed.

People had developed good relationships with their regular staff and found staff to be caring and considerate ensuring that their privacy and dignity was maintained. People were not always happy with the service because they were not kept informed of who would be supporting them when their regular staff were not available.

People’s consent was obtained for the care provided and staff ensured that people were supported to make day to day choices about their care. Relatives were involved in making decisions for people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.

People were protected from abuse and injury because staff had the skills and knowledge to keep people safe and knew what actions to take in emergency situations.

People were able to raise concerns and generally felt they received a good response from the office staff.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided but these were not fully embedded and did not always provide accurate information.

2 February 2015 and 19 February 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Homebased Care – Erdington office on 2 and 19 February 2015. We told the provider that we were going to visit 48 hours before our visit on the first day and 24 hours’ notice for the second day.

The service was last inspected over 3 days in January, February and March 2014. At that inspection we had determined that the service was not effective in monitoring the quality of the service, was not protecting people from the unsafe management of medicines, was not effective in the planning and delivery of care because suitable systems were not in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with people’s consent. An action plan was sent following that inspection.

At this inspection we saw that consent was obtained for the care provided however the other issues had not been fully addressed.

Homebased Care – Erdington provides care and support to people in their own homes. The service provided care for up to 300 people although this number could vary.

People’s needs were assessed and they were involved in planning their care. People’s needs were not always appropriately met because there were late and missed calls which resulted in people not receiving their meals and medicines at the required times.

Some people were not happy with the care and support they received. There were some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service but the systems were not effective in achieving improvements and maintaining any improvements made.

This meant that the law was not being met in respect meeting people’s needs and of monitoring and assessing the quality of the service. You can see what we have asked the provider to take at the end of the report.

There was no 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. 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. However, an individual was in place managing the service.

People were not always protected from abuse and injury because although staff had the skills and knowledge to keep people safe; missed and late calls but their health and welfare at risk. Staff were knowledgeable about the actions to take in emergency situations but did not always put their knowledge into practice.

People did not always receive continuity of care because there were a large number of staff that supported them.

People’s health was monitored and there was appropriate liaison with the healthcare professionals involved in people’s care.

People had developed good relationships with their regular staff but did not always feel listened to or that their concerns were appropriately addressed by office staff.

31 January and 7 February and 4 March 2014

During a routine inspection

When we inspected the service in January 2013 we found non-compliance with the quality assurance systems and audits of the service. At this inspection we saw that the registered manager had left and an acting manager was in post. At this inspection we saw that there were still shortfalls in the service.

Our inspection was carried out at the agency's office. The agency supported approximately 190 people. We looked at six care files, five staff files, spoke with 10 staff, the manager, and 20 people that used the service and or their relative. We also sent questionnaires to people and or their relatives and asked them to tell us about their experiences about using the service.

Systems in place had not ensured that people's mental capacity to consent to their care was considered and recorded. People and their relatives told us they were involved in their care planning but that staff did not always ask for their consent before providing care.

People's needs were assessed and planned and there was a system of regular reviews in place. However some care plans and daily recordings lacked detail to enable staff to care for people safely in the way that they wanted and needed. Risk assessments for the safe handling of people and for specific health conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes were not in place. This meant that people's safety and wellbeing were not protected and placed them at risk of harm.

Some people were happy with the care they or their relative received whilst others told us that care calls were rarely on time or with regular care staff. One person said, 'We have had the same girls for years. They know my relative really well. They are great with him.' Some people told us however that they were not happy about some aspects of their care and actions were being taken by the service to address this. One person said, 'I asked them to change me and make me another drink before they left but the carers said they didn't have time.'

Some people had not received their medicines as prescribed because care calls had not been made on time or staff had forgotten to give people their medication. This meant that people's health needs were not appropriately met.

Staff training and supervision was up to date. This ensured that people were supported by staff that had the skills, knowledge and information to meet people's needs safely in the way that they wanted.

Improved quality and care monitoring processes had recently been implemented to ensure that care calls were delivered in line with people's assessed plan of care. These were not however sufficiently robust to assure the quality of the care delivered.

3, 7 January 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spoke to the Human Resources (HR) training manger of the service. We held telephone interviews with a relative of a service user, four people who used the service and four care workers.

Most people that we spoke with said that they were involved in agreeing and planning their care. One person we spoke to said, 'My son was involved in my care planning'.

We found that people's needs were appropriately assessed and planned to ensure that the care people received was safe and appropriate. All of the people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us, "They are very good; I have to admit I'm quite satisfied'.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from harm and felt confident that if they had to report any abuse, action would be taken to protect people. People were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe administration of medicines.

We saw that people's health and welfare needs were met by competent staff that had appropriate checks, supervision, training and appraisal.

There were some system to monitor the quality of service people received through regular reviews and surveys.

20 September 2011

During a routine inspection

When we visited the service on 27 September 2011 we spoke on the 'phone to family members of one person whose care we followed. They were very positive about the service that their relative received from the agency. They told us that the regular care workers helped them a lot to continue to look after their very disabled relative at home. This person was visited four times each day by care workers from the service. They said that care workers were friendly, competent and the regular ones were very reliable and generally punctual.