Background to this inspection
Updated
8 March 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This inspection took place on 7 and 8 January 2016 and was announced. This was because the service was a domiciliary care agency we needed to be sure someone would be available at the registered location. The inspection team consisted of one Adult Social Care Inspector. During the inspection we spoke with; two relatives, four people who used the service and we observed one person being supported by care staff at a community activity. We also spoke with; the manager, managing director, one senior carer and five care staff.
During our inspection we spoke with an external stakeholder who worked in partnership with quality carers to provide support for people. We spoke with a representative of the Pennywell Academy where Quality Carers UK support students with personal care.
Before the inspection we checked the information that we held about this location and the service provider. For example we looked at safeguarding notifications and complaints. We also contacted professionals involved in supporting the people who used the service; including commissioners and no concerns were raised by any of these professionals.
The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. During this inspection, we asked the provider to tell us about the improvements they had made or any they had planned.
Prior to the inspection we contacted the local Healthwatch and no concerns had been raised with them about the service. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for health and social care services. They give consumers a voice by collecting their views, concerns and compliments through their engagement work.
During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with one person who used the service and with each other. We observed one person being supported by care staff with a community activity to see whether people had positive experiences. This included looking at the support that was given by the staff by observing practices and interactions between staff and people who used the service.
We looked at five peoples care plans, the manager’s spot check records, online staff training records, recruitment files, medicines records, and records relating to the management of the service such as audits, policies, procedures and minutes of meetings.
Updated
8 March 2016
The inspection took place on 7 and 8 January 2016. The inspection was announced. This was because the service was a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the registered location so we could carry out our inspection.
Quality Carers UK is a Domiciliary Care service that provides personal care and support to people with learning disabilities and older people who live in their own home and for children within a school setting. The service covers the Darlington area and at the time of our inspection provided support to 8 people.
The service had a manager who had submitted their application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.
We spoke with a range of different staff members; senior carers, care staff and the managing director who told us that the manager was always available and approachable. Throughout the day we spoke with people who used the service and staff who assured us that they were comfortable and relaxed with the manager and each other.
From looking at people’s care plans we saw they were written in plain English and in a person centred way and made good use of, personal history and described individuals’ care, treatment, wellbeing and support needs. These were regularly updated by the care staff and reviewed by the manager.
Individual care plans contained risk assessments. These identified risks and described the measures and interventions to be taken to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. The care plans we viewed also showed us that people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to other health care professionals where necessary for example: their GP, mental health team and care managers.
From speaking with people who used the service this showed us that people were supported in a person centred way by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their individual needs within their own homes and within the community. The recruitment process that we looked into was safe and inclusive.
When we looked at the staff training records and spoke with the manager we could see staff were supported to maintain and develop their skills through training and development opportunities. The staff we spoke with confirmed they attended a range of learning opportunities. They told us they had regular supervisions and appraisals with the manager, where they had the opportunity to discuss their care practice, wellbeing and identify further mandatory and vocational training needs.
We were unable to observe how the service administered medicines on the day of our inspection but we were able to establish how people managed them safely in their own home. We looked at how records were kept and spoke with the manager about how staff were trained to administer medicines and we found that the medicines administering process was safe.
During the inspection we received positive feedback from people who used the service that the staff had a good rapport with them. People told us that staff were caring, positive, encouraging and attentive when communicating and supporting them in their own home with daily life tasks, care and support.
People were being encouraged to plan and participate in activities that were personalised and meaningful to them. For example, people who used the service told us how staff spent time with them on a one to one basis in activities and we observed and saw evidence of other activities in the care plans such as bingo, visiting cafes, shopping and socialising. People were being supported regularly to play an active role in their local community.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Any DoLS applications must be made to the Court of Protection.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. We checked to see if the service had procedures in place and was working within the principles of the MCA. At the time of our inspection no applications had been made to the Court of Protection. From speaking to staff and looking at the training records we could see that training for staff was provided regarding MCA and DOLS.
We saw a compliments/complaints procedure was in place and this provided information on the action to take if someone wished to make a complaint and what they should expect to happen next. People also had access to advocacy services and safeguarding contact details if they needed it.
We found that the service had been regularly reviewed through a range of internal and external audits. We saw that action had been taken to improve the service or put right any issues found. We found people who used the service and their representatives were asked for their views via a quality survey to collect feedback about the service.