Archived: St.Mary's Healthcare and Recruitment

Updated 18 December 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 14 November 2018 and was announced. The provider who is also the registered manager was given seven days notice of the inspection as we needed to be sure that the office was open and the provider would be available to speak with us. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, 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 they plan to make. We also looked at information we held about the agency, such as, notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We spoke with the provider, the office administrator, and three members of staff who provided care to people living in the community. We telephoned and spoke with one person currently using the service.

We looked at records held by the provider. This included a care plan, daily notes; a range of the provider’s policies including safeguarding, medicines and the complaints policy; the recruitment and training records of four staff employed to work in the community.

This was the first inspection of St. Mary’s Healthcare and Recruitment, since it was registered in February 2018.

Updated 18 December 2018

The inspection was carried out on 14 November 2018, and was an announced inspection.

St. Mary’s Healthcare and Recruitment is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care for people who require support in their own home. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’ and help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. This was the first comprehensive inspection since the service was registered on 14 February 2018. At the time of our inspection, the service was supporting one elderly person.

The provider was also the registered manager at the service. 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.

The provider had suitable processes in place to safeguard people from different forms of abuse. They knew what their responsibilities were in relation to keeping people safe from the risk of abuse should any incident arise. The provider and staff recognised the signs of abuse and what to look out for. There were systems in place to support staff and people to stay safe.

The provider had involved people in planning their care by assessing their needs on their first visit to the person, and then by asking the person if they were happy with the care they received. There was a strong emphasis on person centred care. People were supported to plan their support and they received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. The service was flexible and responded positively to changes in the person’s needs. People were supported by their family members to discuss their care needs, if this was their choice to do so. One person told us they were able to express their opinions and views and were encouraged and supported to have their voice heard.

People were supported with meal planning, preparation, eating and drinking as needed. Staff supported people, and would contact family members and/or the office to alert the provider to any identified health needs so that their doctor or nurse could be informed.

Staff provided caring and considerate support and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

At this time, the service did not provide care and support to people who were at the end stages of life.

The provider had followed effective recruitment procedures to check that potential staff employed were of good character and had the skills and experience needed to carry out their roles.

The provider deployed sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and provide a flexible service.

Staff had received training to enable them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform. All staff received induction training at the start of their employment. Refresher training was provided at regular intervals.

Staff followed an up to date medicines policy issued by the provider and they were checked against this and assessed by the provider.

Management systems were in use to minimise the risks from the spread of infection. Staff received training about controlling infection and had access to personal protective equipment like disposable gloves and apron’s.

Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

People said that they knew they could contact the provider at any time, and they felt confident about raising any concerns or other issues.

The provider had processes in place to monitor the delivery of the service. As well as talking to the provider at spot checks, people could phone the office at any time, or speak to the provider for out of hours calls. People’s views were obtained through meetings with people and meetings with the relatives of people who used the service. The provider checked how well people felt the service was meeting their needs.

People felt that the service was well led. The provider demonstrated strong values and a desire to learn about and implement best practice throughout the range of services provided. There were systems and processes to enable lessons to be learnt and improvements made if things went wrong. Staff were motivated and proud of the service. The provider had developed effective links with organisations that helped them develop best practice in the service. The provider used effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service.