Archived: Promedica24 UK Ltd - Reading

Updated 13 May 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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2012, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was carried out on 02 March 2016 by two Inspectors and was announced. We also visited people in their home on the 08, 09, 15 and 16 March 2016. We spoke with two social workers and a community nurse. We also reviewed other information we held about the service including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service in their own homes, eight relatives, seven staff members, the manager and director and two care managers. We also received feedback from health and social care professionals; we looked at care plans relating to seven people and six staff files.

Updated 13 May 2016

The inspection took place on the 02 March 2016 and was announced to ensure the people we needed to assist with our inspection were available. We found that the provider had moved locations from 400 Thames Valley Park Drive, Reading, RG6 1PT, to Cassiobury House, 11-19 Station Road, Watford, WD17 1AP. This had been completed without the correct registration processes being completed. These concerns were now being addressed by the provider. This was the first inspection for this location. We carried out home visits on four separate days to meet and obtain feedback from people who used the service, their families and live in carers. We also held interviews over the phone. Promedica24 UK Ltd - Reading provides live in carers to support people who live in their own homes. At the time of our inspection Promedica24 UK Ltd - Reading were providing care to 78 people.

There was not a registered manager since 17 November 2015 the manager at the time of our inspection had just applied to become the 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Accidents and incidents were recorded by staff but no follow up or risk assessments were completed to keep people safe. There were no systems in place to monitor risk to people’s health and well- being.

People told us that they felt safe, happy and well looked after in their homes. Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse. Staff would report concerns to the manager and the family. However staff were not aware of the process for reporting to the local authorities. The recruitment processes were not safe and effective. There were not sufficient staff resources to always cover staff when required.

Medicines Administration Records (MAR) were not always completed properly and we saw no evidence that medicine audits had been completed or staff received competency checks in medicine administration.

There were no systems in place that enabled staff to identify trends and patterns emerging to prevent risks and improve the service. The provider did not have effective governance in place. There were no systems to audit, monitor and drive improvement.

People knew how to complain. However there were no effective and accessible systems for identifying, receiving, handling and responding to complaints from people who used the service.

Relatives and people were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of staff who worked in their homes. Staff received four days training in Poland, however the training did not cover all areas of people’s needs and we saw no evidence of additional training for staff to enable them to support people’s needs. Staff had not received regular supervision to discuss and review their development and performance.

Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they cared for and clearly knew them very well. People had been involved in the initial assessments of their care but not everyone received regular reviews of their care and support.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. However not all people received personalised care and support that met their changing needs and took account of their preferences.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health and social care professionals when necessary. They were provided with a healthy balanced diet that met their individual needs.

Staff made considerable efforts to ascertain people’s wishes and obtain their consent before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and compassionate way.