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

Archived: Wisdom Healthcare Limited

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Suites 4/5 Newfield House, High Street, Tunstall, Stoke On Trent, ST6 5PD (01782) 810595

Provided and run by:
Blu-Sky Care Limited

All Inspections

22 January 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 22 January 2015. The provider was given short notice of the visit. We had carried out a previous inspection on 13 June 2014 where it was identified that the provider needed to improve the way in which people received care and welfare and the way in which the provider monitored the quality of service provision. We found the provider had made some improvements to these areas but that there was still further improvement required.

Wisdom Healthcare Limited provides personal care and support to people living in the community. There is a registered manager in place for 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.’

There were systems in place to help drive improvement but this system had failed to identify where medication had not been managed appropriately The quality monitoring system had also failed to identify areas for improvement following comments and suggestions from people who used the service.

People thought that the care they received was good but some people said that staff did not always arrive at their homes at the times they had agreed.

Some people felt that it was sometimes difficult to get to speak with someone if they had a concern or complaint and that the manager was not often accessible.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is designed to protect people who can't make decisions for themselves or lack the mental capacity to do so. The provider followed the guidance of the MCA when people required support in the decision making process. People consented to their care and were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support

Staff had necessary checks carried out on them to ensure they were fit to work with adults and received training to help them meet people’s needs and keep people safe. Staff received support to carry out their job role and spot checks were carried out to ensure standards were maintained.

There were individual risk assessments in place to help keep people safe. People who used the service felt staff gave them safe care and support. Staff knew how to raise concerns about poor practice.

People who used the service felt that staff were kind, helpful and respectful towards them and treated them in a respectful way.

13 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection giving the provider short notice that we were coming. This was because we needed to ensure that we would have access to the information we required. During the inspection visit to the office we looked at records and documentation and we spoke with the operations manager and the care manager.

Since our last inspection some concerns had been identified about the service and the local authority had been monitoring improvements. Their last report identified that the required improvements had been made and the monitoring of the service had been completed.

Following the inspection we spoke, over the telephone, with two of the people who used the service and three representatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with three staff members over the telephone.

We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions we always ask:

Is it safe?

There were individual risk assessments in place for each of the people who used the service. These included risk analyses of their home environment. This helped to ensure that people remained safe.

A representative of a person using the service told us: "I feel that x is very safe with the staff. I have no concerns about that".

Staff who supported people in their own homes had received training in care and support and health and safety. Staff were also trained in the use of any specialised equipment. This ensured that staff supported people in a safe way.

Is it caring?

People we spoke with told us that the staff were caring and supportive. One person said: "The staff are caring, friendly and positive. I have heard them speaking to x when I was in the other room and they were lovely". Another person said: "They always treat x with dignity and in a respectful way".

Is it responsive?

The provider had a complaints procedure in place. We saw that the provider had investigated complaints. People we spoke with said they would tell the staff if they were worried about anything. A person told us: "You can approach any of the staff about anything. If I had any concerns I would ask the manager and have done in the past".

People using the service and/or their representatives were enabled to share their opinions as the provider regularly sought their views and suggestions. The provider will need to reflect where improvements have been made as a result of these surveys.

Is it effective?

People's care and support needs had not been reviewed on a regular basis. Therefore it could not be guaranteed that people needs had not changed or that people were receiving care and support which met their current needs.

People who used the service felt there were too many different care staff supporting them. One person said: "They need to sort the staff rota out. When new staff start all the time I have to keep telling them how I like things done". Another person said: "It would be better if we could have a small team of staff looking after x".

Is it well-led?

We wanted to see if the provider had made any improvements to quality monitoring (outcome 16) since our last inspection. We found that there was now a quality monitoring system in place where the provider had introduced audits of the services provided. Although they had improved in this area, the initial audits had not been followed up and were out of date. This meant that the system in place was not effective in bringing about and/or measuring improvements.

Staff who worked for the service felt well supported. One person said: "The manager is very good and I think it is a good company to work for".

8 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we looked at four care records for people who used the service and spoke with people and their family members. We spoke with staff and the registered manager. We did this to help us to understand the outcomes and experiences of selected people who used the service.

We saw that people who used the service were involved in their care plans and staff treated people with dignity and respect when providing support. People we spoke with told us that they had choices in their care and staff listened to what they wanted. One person told us, "I have been involved in my care from the start and the staff always ask me what I need. I am very happy with the service". Another person told us, "The staff are great, they can't do enough for me".

The provider had an effective recruitment procedure in place and undertook appropriate checks to ensure staff were suitable to provide support to vulnerable people.

Staff we spoke with told us that they received an induction before they provided support to people who used the service. Staff told us that they felt supported in their role by the manager and were able to raise any concerns if needed. We viewed training records, which showed that staff had received training to help them carry out their role.

We found that the provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.