You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

This announced inspection took place on 05 and 07 July 2017. Carers’ Support (Bexley) provides respite breaks for family carers across the London boroughs of Bexley and Greenwich. At the time of the inspection 42 people were receiving personal care. We previously carried out an announced inspection of this service on 24 April 2015 and the service was rated good overall.

The service had a system and process to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received. The service carried out spot checks, conducted phone calls to people’s homes and reviewed areas such as the administration of medicines, health and safety, care plans and risk assessments. The service sought the views of people and their relatives to improve the quality of the service.

However, at this inspection we identified some improvement was required in specific areas related to the management of the service. The provider’s medicines policy was incomplete and they had not maintained a manual or electronic call monitoring (ECM) system to show that they had monitored visits to people’s homes to ensure they received visits at the correct times and for the required duration. As a result of the inspection feedback the registered manager confirmed with us that they had arranged to review and update the medicines policy and said that they have now introduced a call monitoring log. We shall assess the impact of this at our next inspection.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager demonstrated good knowledge of people’s needs and the needs of the staff team. Staff described the leadership at the service positively.

People’s relatives told us their family member’s felt safe with the staff. The service had clear procedures to recognise and respond to abuse. All staff completed safeguarding training. Senior staff completed risk assessments for people who used the service which provided guidance for staff to minimise identified risks. The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce reoccurrence.

The service had enough staff to support people and carried out satisfactory recruitment checks before they started working. The service had an on call system to make sure staff had support outside the office working hours. Staff supported people so they took their medicines safely.

The service provided an induction and training, and supported staff through regular supervision to help them undertake their role.

People’s consent was sought before care was provided. The registered manager was aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At the time of inspection they told us they were not supporting any people who did not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Care records we saw confirmed this.

Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People’s relatives coordinated health care appointments to meet people’s needs, and staff were available to support people to access health care appointments if needed.

Staff supported people in a way which was caring, respectful, and protected their privacy and dignity. Staff developed people’s care plans that were tailored to meet their individual needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly and were up to date.

The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints. People knew how to complain and would do so if necessary.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was safe.

People’s relatives told us they felt safe and that staff treated them well. The service had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults from abuse. Staff understood the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred.

Senior staff completed risk assessments and risk management plans to reduce identified risks to people.

The service had a system to manage accidents and incidents to reduce reoccurrence.

The service had enough staff to support people and carried out satisfactory background checks before they started working.

Staff supported people so they took their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was effective.

People’s relatives commented positively about staff and told us they supported them properly.

The service provided an induction and training for staff. Staff were supported through regular supervision to help them undertake their role.

Staff sought consent from people when offering them support. The provider and staff acted in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. People’s relatives coordinated health care appointments and staff were available to support people to access health care appointments if needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was caring.

People’s relatives told us they were consulted about their care and support needs.

Staff treated people with respect and kindness, and encouraged them to maintain their independence.

Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff developed care plans with people to meet their needs. Care plans included the level of support people needed and what they could manage to do by themselves.

People knew how to complain and would do so if necessary. The service had a clear policy and procedure for managing complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 5 September 2017

Some aspects of the service were not well-led.

The provider’s medicines policy was incomplete and they had not maintained a manual or electronic call monitoring (ECM) system record to show that they had monitored visits to people homes to ensure they received visits at the correct times and for the required duration.

Relatives commented positively about the management of the service. The service sought the views of people and their relatives to improve the quality of the service. The service had system and process to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received.

The service had a registered manager in post. Staff described the leadership at the service positively.