Background to this inspection
Updated
28 January 2015
This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?
The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.
We visited the service on 16 July 2014. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be inspecting their service. Following the inspection in July 2014 the provider has deregistered the service. We are required by law that, as the service was registered at the time of the inspection, we must publish this inspection report.
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. During this inspection we spoke with the head of operations, the deputy manager and one staff member. An Expert by Experience contacted 14 people who received respite support from the service to carry out telephone interviews. An Expert by Experience is a person who had personal experience of using or caring for someone who used this type of service. We also contacted 38 care support staff via email to ask their feedback and 15 of them sent us their comments regarding the service.
During the inspection we looked at the care files of ten people using the service and the personal files of ten care support workers.
Before our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service and information sent to us by the provider (Provider Information Returns). This is a form submitted by provider giving data and information about the service.
Updated
28 January 2015
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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This was an announced inspection on the 16 July 2014. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be inspecting their service.
Crossroads Care Redbridge - Epping & Harlow Redbridge Office provides respite care support for carers and the people they care for in their own homes. The care support workers enable carers to have a break from their caring responsibilities by providing appropriate support for adults or children who have care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 50 people receiving support with personal care.
The service had a registered manager in place but we learned later that the registered manager had been sick for six months and they had cover arrangements in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.
Our last inspection was in August 2013. At that inspection, the service was found to have met required regulations for care and welfare of people who use services, supporting staff, assessing quality, complaints and records.
People using the service that we spoke with told us they felt safe leaving their relative in the care of the staff. We saw that the care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed by staff and the carer receiving respite care.
We saw that some of the staff had not completed the training that had been identified as mandatory by the provider including important areas such as first aid, infection control and manual handling. New staff completed a detailed induction programme which included shadowing experienced care staff.
The service worked closely with healthcare providers and voluntary organisations to ensure people could access the care and support they required.
Staff signed a code of conduct and people using the service we spoke with felt staff promoted their privacy and dignity when providing care.
We saw that the service carried out assessments of the quality of the service provided as part of the care plan reviews and through an annual questionnaire but the information received was not used to identify any areas of good practice or where improvements were required.
The service did not carry out regular spot checks on the quality of the care provided by its staff in people’s homes.
Information on good practice and any changes to legislation or the way the service provided care was communicated to staff through quarterly staff meetings, emails and memos.