You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 January 2016

We inspected Everycare Midsussex on the 7 December 2015. Everycare Midsussex is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care for people with a range of needs living in their own homes. These included people living with dementia, older people and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection the service supported 52 people and employed approximately 28 staff. Everycare Midsussex operates as a franchise business, trading as Cura Muneris Limited. Everycare provide domiciliary care franchises and services across the UK.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Everycare Midsussex was last inspected on 10 September 2014 and concerns were identified around care planning, quality monitoring and record keeping.

Quality assurance was undertaken by the provider to measure and monitor the standard of the service provided. However, we found that despite checks taking place, we could not identify how the provider monitored or analysed information around accidents and incidents over time to determine trends, create learning and to make changes to the way the service was run. This is an area of practice that requires improvement.

The service had good systems in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risks to people had been developed and were continually reviewed. The service employed enough, qualified and trained staff, and ensured safety through appropriate recruitment practices.

People said they always got their care visit, they were happy with the care and the staff that supported them. One person told us, “I get the same group of carers and they are excellent. I feel totally safe with them. They are generally on time and stay for the full time”.

Medicines were managed safely and people received the support they required from staff. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were administered and reviewed appropriately.

Should people lack mental capacity to make specific decisions, the service was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. Care staff always sought people’s consent before delivering care. One person told us, “They always ask my consent before they start anything for me”.

People told us they were involved in the planning and review of their care. A person told us, “I had a planning meeting when I first came out of hospital and my son was involved”. We were given examples that showed the service had followed good practice and safe procedures in order to keep people safe.

Staff received an induction, basic training and additional specialist training in areas such as dementia care and catheter care. Staff had group and one to one meetings which were held regularly, in order for them to discuss their role and share any information or concerns.

If needed, people were supported with their food and drink and this was monitored if required. One person told us, “They make me some soup and always wash up the tea things”. Another person said, “They prepare my [relative’s] dinner for him and that really helps me”.

The needs and choices of people had been clearly documented in their care plans. Where people’s needs changed the service acted quickly to ensure the person received the care and support they required. A member of staff told us, “I visited a person today and they were not well. We contacted the paramedics”.

People and their family members told us they were supported by kind and caring staff. A person told us, “The carers who come to see me are so thoughtful. They speak pleasantly to me and we always have a laugh”. Another person said, “The care we get is excellent, nothing is too much trouble for them. They are polite and respectful to me and my [relative], she really likes them”. Staff were able to tell us about the people they supported, for example their likes, dislikes and preferences.

People’s personal preferences were recorded on file and staff encouraged people to be involved in their care. A person told us, “We have had a review and about once every four months we get a [feedback] form to say what we think of the service”.

People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and felt they would be listened to.

The management provided good leadership and support to the staff. One member of staff told us, “The management are very open and honest. They care for their staff and keep us informed. They respect us and we respect them”. Quality assurance was undertaken by the provider to measure and monitor the standard of the service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 January 2016

The service was safe.

People and relatives told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Detailed risk assessments were in place to ensure people were safe within their home and when they received care and support. Medication was administered and managed appropriately.

The service had policies in place to protect people from abuse, and staff had a clear understanding of what to do if safeguarding concerns were identified.

There were enough staff to deliver care safely, and ensure that people’s care calls were covered when staff were absent. When the service employed new staff they followed safe recruitment practices.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 January 2016

The service was effective.

Staff understood people’s health needs and acted quickly when those needs changed. Where necessary, further support had been requested from the social services and other health care professionals. This ensured that the person’s changing needs could be met.

Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities. They were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 January 2016

The service was caring.

People were pleased with the care and support they received. They felt their individual needs were met and understood by caring staff. They told us that they felt involved with their care and that they mattered.

Staff knew the care and support needs of people well and took an interest in people and their families to provide individual personal care. Staff were able to give us examples of how they protected people’s dignity and treated them with respect.

Staff were also able to explain the importance of confidentiality, so that people’s privacy was protected. Care records were maintained safely and people’s information kept confidentially.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 January 2016

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were asked for their views about the service through questionnaires and surveys. People told us they felt listened to and staff responded to their needs.

People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. Where complaints or concerns had arisen, a detailed investigation and action had been taken to reduce the risk of the issue from happening again.

Care plans were in place to ensure people received care which was personalised to meet their needs, wishes and aspirations.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 January 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

The provider completed a number of checks to ensure they provided a good quality service. However, we found that despite checks taking place, we could not identify how the provider monitored or analysed information around accidents and incidents over time to determine trends, create learning and to make changes to the way the service was run.

Staff felt supported by management, said they were listened to, and understood what was expected of them.

Staff promoted a positive and open culture. Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of what their roles and responsibilities were.