Archived: Sunshine Solutions

The inspector gathered evidence from people who used the service and staff by telephoning them. The inspector examined relevant records and also spoke to staff on site on the day of the inspection.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary please can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. In general safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

All of the staff we spoke to said that if they witnessed poor practice they would report their concerns and knew how to go about this.

There was no system in place to make sure that the manager and staff learnt from events such as late calls, accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This meant that people were not benefiting from a service that was well managed.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. Staff were offered e-learning based training but there was no training matrix to show when staff completed the required training.

We asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to quality assurance and training needs.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was evidence that people had been involved in their care. The care plans were very task orientated, the provider may wish to consider making them more person centred, to include information on the client's life history, hobbies, likes and dislikes as well as showing how they can meet their physical, emotional and social needs, and to include dates when the care plans are reviewed.

Daily records were completed and provided enough information to show the needs of the person who used the service were being met.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service and their relatives said 'The staff are very good, they will do anything for me' and 'I have a package of care where my relatives needs are sensitively dealt with' and one relative said that the staff share information on good ideas.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

Staff we spoke with said 'I get a full description of each client before I visit them for the first time' and 'Any deterioration in a client I report straight away'.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. A service user guide included the complaints policy and how to make a complaint.

We looked at the complaints policy and the complaints file. We did see a written record of a complaint made by a relative and we saw what action was taken to address this.

Also we saw evidence of one missed call and a copy of a letter of apology. The manager said the person responded to this letter by phone call, this phone call was not documented and we saw no evidence of a learning outcome from this.

Is the service well-led?

Sunshine Solutions have updated their recruitment package which included, interview questions, hours and areas of availability, philosophy of care statement and application form. The manager said they have just started a recruitment drive where this package can be put into practice.

All checks on current staff had been undertaken for example references were sought from two previous employers and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check were all in place, this helped the provider make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups.

The service had no evidence of staff supervisions, appraisals or staff meetings. This meant that staff did not receive support or have their performance reviewed to make sure they carried out their role in the right way.

Sunshine Solutions did not have a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service or an analysis of any incidents such as late or missed calls.

We have asked the manager to put a system in place to make sure staff supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings are taking place. The manager also needs to put a system in place to document how they monitor the quality of the service and an analysis of any incidents.

We looked at the safeguarding policy, staff handbook and staff training. We saw that there was now clear information for staff about how to report any concerns in the right way.

We looked at personnel files of new members of staff. We saw the provider now carried out better checks to make sure only staff that were suitable were employed.

We spoke with six people who used the service and two relatives for their views about the agency. People said they had been given a leaflet about the service but felt it would be better if there was more information.

All the people we spoke with said care staff were respectful. People who used the service described care staff as 'polite', 'friendly and 'kind'.

The agency assessed each person's needs and planned their care service. People said they were 'happy' with the care service from Sunshine Solutions. One person said, 'They do a good job. The staff are lovely.'

People felt 'safe' with their regular care staff. However the agency did not make sure that staff understood their responsibility to protect the people who used the service or knew how to report any concerns.

The agency had not carried out all the checks to make sure new staff were suitable to work in a care service.

The provider carried out reviews of the service and asked people for their views and suggestions. The provider was introducing a new quality assurance system as the service developed.