Archived: Accessible Care - Maidstone

Updated 8 February 2019

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 registered persons continued to meet 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.

We used information the registered persons sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require registered persons to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the agency, what the agency does well and improvements they plan to make. We also examined other information we held about the agency. This included notifications of incidents that the registered persons had sent us since our last inspection. These are events that happened in the service that the registered persons are required to tell us about. We also invited feedback from the commissioning bodies who contributed to purchasing some of the care provided by the agency. We did this so that they could tell us their views about how well the agency was meeting people's needs.

We visited the registered office on the 10, 14 and 15 January 2019. The inspection consisted of one inspector, an assistant inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service. We gave the service four days' notice of the inspection visit because we needed to be sure the registered manager, staff and people we needed to speak to and visit were available.

On the 10 and 14 January we visited the registered office. On the 15 January we visited people in their own homes and the registered office. On the 16 January 2019 we made additional phone calls to people using the agency.

We spoke with ten people who used the service and with four relatives. We also visited four people in their own homes with a member of the care staff. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, recruitment coordinator and four care staff. We looked at the care records of nine people using the agency. We looked at four staff files as well as records relating to how the agency was run. These included those relating to the management of medicines, health and safety, training records and systems and processes used to monitor and evaluate the agency.

Updated 8 February 2019

This comprehensive inspection was carried out on 10, 14 and 15 January 2019 and was announced.

Accessible Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides care and support for people in their own homes. Care is provided for a range of people including older people, people with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, physical disabilities and younger adults. Not everyone using Accessible Care receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; 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 there were 292 people using the agency at the time of our inspection.

The agency 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.

At our last comprehensive inspection in May 2016 we rated the service ‘Good’ overall, with the responsive key question rated as ‘Outstanding’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’ overall and ‘Outstanding’ in responsive. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any 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.

The registered manager and management team were committed to developing the agency through continuous improvement. People and relatives told us that staff went the extra mile to ensure their needs and wishes were met. Staff went over and above the role to ensure people led a happy and fulfilled life.

Feedback was sought and acted on to improve the quality of the service that was provided to people. People were given opportunities to raise any concerns or make suggestions about improvements to the agency.

The registered manager had developed links with other agencies to promote people’s safety and well-being. Staff said the service was open, transparent and that they felt supported by their managers. There were audits in place which checked the quality of the service being provided. Staff were involved in developing the service.

People felt safe and were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had access to the branches safeguarding coordinator for advice. Potential risks had been assessed and mitigated.

People were provided with consistency and continuity of care. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment procedures were followed. Staff were supported in their role by the management team and received ongoing support through their induction. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and could request additional training.

Medicines were managed safely and were administered by staff that had been trained and competency assessed. People were supported to remain healthy with support from health care professionals where required. People received support to manage their nutrition and hydration. Staff worked alongside health care professionals to ensure people’s nutrition was maintained. Staff understood the importance of infection control procedures.

People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving support from the agency. People were at the centre of their care and informed staff how they wanted their needs met. Care records were kept under continuous review to ensure they met people’s needs. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People’s dignity and privacy was respected. People’s personal information was kept confidential.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People’s consent was sought from staff prior to any care or support tasks.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.