Archived: Baryen Health Care Ltd HQ

The inspection took place on 10 February 2015 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The agency was registered with the CQC in April 2014 so this was the first inspection of the service under the new registration.

Baryen Health Care is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service aims to provide care and support to older and younger people with a variety needs. These include people living with dementia, mental health, misuse of drugs and alcohol and people with a learning or physical disability. Care and support was co-ordinated from the services office which is based near Doncaster town centre.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

At the time of our inspection the service was only supporting a small number of people so we spoke with everyone they were supporting to gain their experience of using the agency.

At our inspection of 10 February 2015, we found a breach of Regulation 21 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

We saw a structured recruitment process was in place to help make sure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people; however this had not always been followed. We found appropriate checks had been undertaken for staff supporting people on a regular basis, but two of the four bank staff files we checked did not have two written references on file. The provider told us they would take immediate action to address this shortfall.

People using the service received their care and support from staff who visited them on a regular basis. Where necessary bank care workers filled in for permanent staff when they were on leave. People who used the service raised no concerns about how the service was staffed and confirmed they had the same regular staff.

People’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and they told us they had been involved in formulating and updating their care plans. Care records we sampled identified people’s needs, as well as any risks associated with their care. However, the information provided did not always give clear guidance to staff about their role in supporting the person or their preferences. People who were using the service told us staff were meeting their needs and delivering care as they preferred and we found staff were knowledgeable about the needs and preferences of the person they were supporting.

Where people needed assistance taking their medication this was administered in a timely way by staff who had been trained to carry out this role. People told us had received their medicines appropriately and raised no concerns. However, medication records lacked specific information about the medications administered by staff. The provider told us they would take immediate action to improve the recording of any medicines administered.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected. This includes balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

We found new staff had received a structured induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by more specialist training to enhance their knowledge and skills. Staff told us they felt well supported. However, there were no records maintained to evidence that formal supervision sessions had taken place.

The company had a complaints policy which was provided to each person at the start of their care package. The provider told us they had not received any formal complaints, but we saw an appropriate system was in place to record the details and outcomes of concerns raised.

The provider had a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and check if company polices were being followed. Due to the small number of people supported by the agency since it registered with CQC this had not been fully utilised, but people confirmed they were regularly consulted about the care provided.