The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rated Hibiscus Domiciliary Care Agency in Wolverhampton, inadequate and placed it in special measures following an inspection in September.
Hibiscus Domiciliary Care Agency provides personal care to people in their own homes and supported living accommodation. The service provides support to older people, people with dementia or mental health issues and those with a learning, physical or sensory disability and autistic people.
Following this inspection, the service’s overall rating has dropped from requires improvement to inadequate and the service has been placed in special measures. The service was also rated inadequate for being safe, effective, and well-led, and rated requires improvement for being caring and responsive.
Debbie Ivanova, CQC’s director for people with learning disabilities and autistic people, said:
“When we inspected Hibiscus Domiciliary Care Agency, we found a service where the standard of care had deteriorated since our last inspection. People’s safety and wellbeing needs weren’t always being met, and risks weren’t effectively managed.
“For example, there were no systems in place to review accidents or incidents. No checks were made to see if there were any trends or learnings to reduce the risk of reoccurrence which placed people at risk of harm.
“It was concerning that some people had health conditions that required staff to respond swiftly if they became unwell but there was no guidance in place to teach staff how to recognise symptoms or know what to do in an emergency.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff were aware of, and following, best practice guidance for supporting people with a learning disability. No staff had received training in relation to learning disabilities, which is now a requirement for all services.
“However, people told us they were treated with dignity and kindness and their privacy was respected. For example, people were supported with their cultural needs.
“We will continue to monitor Hibiscus Domiciliary Care Agency closely to ensure people are safe. If we are not assured people are receiving safe care, we will not hesitate to take action.”
Inspectors found:
- There were limited or no risk assessments in place and limited or no details in people's care plans about risks to people's safety.
- People were not always assessed and did not always have robust plans in place for their eating needs.
- At the last inspection inspectors made a recommendation about medicines as they were not being managed safely. At this inspection we found medicines were still not safely managed.
- Inspectors were not assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.
- Staff were not recruited safely which could put people at risk. For example, checks weren’t always completed of people’s employment history, identity and references.
- The provider had failed to recognise they needed to carry out assessments of people's capacity, when it was thought a person may struggle to make decisions due an impairment
- Staff did not receive enough training to be effective in their role. The provider had no way of tracking the training staff had received, such as a training matrix.
However:
- People's equality and diversity needs were respected and supported. People were supported with culturally appropriate food and staff could easily communicate with people.
- People had access to information in a way that suited them. The nominated individual explained they could provide information in large print or could explain things to people in a way they understood.
- People were supported to avoid social isolation and the service was tailored to support people's cultural heritage.
- People were protected from abuse by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities and how to report concerns.