The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Community Integrated Care, Leicester Regional Office

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

6th Floor, 60 Charles Street, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE1 1FB (0116) 262 7641

Provided and run by:
Community Integrated Care

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

13 July 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Community Integrated Care (CIC) on 13 and 14 July 2015. The inspection was unannounced. CIC provides personal care services to people who live in self-contained flats within supported living accommodation across Leicester. The agency headquarters are in Leicester City centre. The service was providing support for 27 people at the time of our visit.

The service has a registered manager. 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, and associated Regulations, about how the service is run.

Relatives said they thought their family members were safe at the home and had peace of mind about them being there. Staff knew how to keep people safe and ensured they had the support they needed to live as safely and independently as possible.

Staff had been trained to keep people safe and understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns they might have. People who lacked capacity to make certain decisions were effectively supported with staff using the least restrictive methods available.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff had the time to both support people and interact socially with them. Staff were safely recruited and the right skills and experience to provide safe care. Medicines were safely managed and given to people in the prescribed way.

People liked the food served and relatives said their family members enjoyed it. The menus we saw were based on people's choices and took into account any relevant health advice.

People’s health care needs were identified and care plans put in place to assist staff in meeting them in conjunction with health care professionals where necessary. Relatives told us staff acted quickly if people using the service needed medical attention.

People and their relatives told us the staff were caring and kind. We observed a caring atmosphere when staff worked in the homes we visited and staff followed people's preferred activities programs.

Relatives told us the staff were always respectful to the people using the service and we observed this during our inspection. Relatives told us the staff provided personalised care that focused on the needs of the individuals.

Care plans instructed staff on how to support people in the way they wanted. All the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people’s individual needs.

Relatives told us that if they had any concerns they would raise them. Records showed that if someone did complain or raise a concern, this was documented and the manager took action to put things right.

All the relatives and staff we spoke with said they thought the service was well-led. The focus was on people's individual needs at the centre of how the service was run.

Relatives told us the management were always friendly and approachable. The manager had systems in place to monitor and assess the overall quality of the service.

8 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe.

People told us that they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

Staff had been aware about care plans that had been written for people with particular needs. Some plans did not contain sufficient detail to promote people's welfare. This did not entirely protect people from unnecessary risk of harm.

There was a system in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This means that people were benefiting from a service that was learning from issues.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs had been assessed and care plans were in place. There was evidence of people being involved in assessments of their needs and planning their care. People told us that staff had spoken with them about their care needs.

Specialist dietary needs were assessed and included in care plans though more detail was needed in some plans to ensure people got the right food. All care plans had not been reviewed regularly. Relatives told us that they had not been invited to reviews of the care of their relatives. One relative told us an action plan had been set up to meet her brother's needs. However, she did not receive updates about action that was taken by the service. This did not entirely confirm that people's needs were being met.

Is the service caring?

Five people told us that staff had supported them properly. One person said, 'Staff are really good. They help me when I need them'.

People using the service confirmed they had completed an annual satisfaction survey. Most relatives told us they had not received a questionnaire, so they were not able to comment on the service provided. The manager said he was sure that all relatives had been sent out a questionnaire but he would follow this up.

We saw evidence of an action plan produced from surveys. This helped to ensure people were not at risk of not receiving good quality care.

Is the service responsive?

People said that they could make a compliant if they wanted to. People told us when they told the registered manager about anything that had concerned them; the manager had tried to put it right.

We looked at the investigations completed. We found that it took three to four months for complaints made in 2012 to be investigated and reported back to the complainant. The manager stated this was before he was employed and this would not happen in future. The service needs to ensure complainants are given a response as soon as possible to ensure fairness and confidence in the service.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us that if they witnessed or heard of poor practice they would report their concerns to their management.

The service had a quality assurance system. The records seen by us showed that any shortfalls identified were highlighted in order to be addressed. The system made sure that staff had been able to provide feedback to their managers, so their knowledge and experience had been taken into account.

There were suggestions made to us during the inspection; for all staff to be proactive in finding out what activities people liked to do and to carry out their wishes: for the service to keep relatives informed of any relevant issues, and for the service to ensure proper food is supplied at all times.

26, 30 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out our inspection by visiting Community Integrated Care's Leicester office and one of the supported living sites. We met six staff, including the regional manager and quality manager. We spoke with two people using the service but because others had complex needs this meant that they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke by telephone with the relatives of three other people to ask them for their views on the service their relative received.

People were asked for their views and consent when the provider made arrangements for the way their support was to be provided. When we spoke with two people who used the service they told us that they were satisfied with the support they received. One told us, 'I am perfectly happy with it all.' Another said, 'I am very happy with it all, no complaints.'

Staff told us that if they had any concerns about the welfare or safety of any person using the service they would take action to help ensure that they were protected. There were policies in place to help support them to do this.

A formal process was followed when appointing new staff and interviews tested out that applicants had relevant experience, skills and knowledge for the role.

People using the service had opportunities to share their views and raise any concerns. The provider took people's different communication needs into account when recording and presenting information.

27 July 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We were able to meet, and spend some time with, five people who lived in flats within one of the supported living schemes in Leicester. The people we spent time with were able to communicate that they felt well looked after, supported and cared for within the scheme. People indicated that they were offered a range of activities they could do during the day and evening. This included being taken to day centres and supported to undertake daily living tasks such as shopping and cooking.

We saw that each person was allocated a key worker who ensured that regular meetings took place with people to ensure they were enabled to express their views and preferences for daily living.

One person was due to have a birthday and the staff team had arranged for him to visit relatives and also go out to the cinema.

The majority of support plans had been updated to ensure that staff were aware of each persons individual needs. A realistic timescale had been set to ensure all people being cared for had person centred plans. The information contained within the support plans reflected the communication we had with people being cared for. It also reflected the knowledge that key workers had in relation to individual people provided with personal care.