Archived: Beavers (Worcester) Limited

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 17 people received support with their care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The registered provider did not have effective systems for governance. The registered provider relied on the administrative staff to make them aware of issues when they were working off site (in order to comply with the Government’s COVID guidance). However, the registered manager was not made aware of issues that arisen that required their attention. The registered provider had also moved office and failed to update their registration.

People were positive about the staff supporting them and felt staff had the required knowledge to support them.

People received their medicines from staff who had received training to support people safely.

People and staff felt supported by the registered manager when they were available. However, systems were not always robust when the registered manager was not available. When the registered manager was made aware of the issues they immediately took action to make people’s experience of care safe.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about people having experienced missed calls. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Safe and Well led sections of this report.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Beavers (Worcester) Limited on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified breaches in relation to registration requirements as well as how the registered provider monitors people experience of care.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will monitor the service moving forwards seeking an action plan to explain how they will make improvements.

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

This inspection took place 18 July 2018 and was announced.

People were protected from the risk of potential abuse and told us they felt safe in the company of carers because of the way carers supported and cared for them. Plans to manage people’s individual risks were assessed, and identified in a way which promoted people’s safety. There were enough carers employed to care for people and chat to them so they did not become isolated. Carers supported some people to take their medicines. Some people had requested carers just reminded them to take their medicines and this had been done.

Carers had the skills and knowledge to care for people effectively. Carers received regular training based on the needs of people using the service. Carers knew the histories and preferences of the people they were supporting and provided care in a way that meet individual people’s needs. People had been involved in making decisions about how their care was delivered daily, and through their assessments, care planning and care plan reviews.

People were encouraged to make choices about the food they ate and carers knew if they had any dietary requirements. People were supported by carers to maintain their health and well-being.

People’s consent was appropriately obtained by carers when caring for them. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and carers support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People received care from carers who took time to get to know them. People had developed good relationships with carers that were caring. Carers supported people to maintain their dignity and people were confident that carers respected their right to confidentiality.

The registered manager, carers met regularly with people to check they were receiving care in the way they wanted. People and their family members were encouraged to give feedback on the quality of the service. The registered manager made sure regular checks were completed to monitor the quality of the care. Carers were aware of and implemented the values demonstrated by the registered manager.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the care and support that they received. One person said: 'I'm very impressed. I like Beavers very much.' Another person said: 'They are reliable and friendly.' A relative said; 'They've been very, very good, excellent actually.'

Consent from people had been obtained before care and support was provided. We found that proper steps had been taken to ensure that individualised care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff had been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had been undertaken that ensured they were suitable to care for vulnerable people.

The provider had systems of audit in place that enabled them to monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure that people received appropriate care and treatment. However, the provider did not have an effective complaints system for recording and handling complaints. Some people were unhappy with how complaints had been handled.

We found that people had been involved in making decisions about their care and were satisfied with the care they received from staff. People we spoke with told us they felt safe when receiving care.

Care plans had been recorded for each person. These provided information for staff who visited them and ensured their individual needs would be met.

People told us staff were competent and caring and we found that staff had received training relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

We found that the registered provider needed to make some improvements to the way they reviewed the quality of their service. Although audits were being carried out they were not done in a timely manner and there was a risk that there may be a delay in them identifying areas of poor practice and issues of concern.