You are here

Local Solutions Prescot Branch Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

This was an announced inspection which took place on 16 and 22 June and 12 July 2016. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location is a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure that someone would be available at the office to assist with the inspection.

Local Solutions is a social enterprise charity organisation providing care to people in the community. With a number of branches across the North West of England, Local Solutions is registered by the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care to people in their own homes. Local Solutions Prescot Branch is managed from well-equipped offices located near to the centre of Prescot, Merseyside. Services are provided to support people to live independently in the community. At the time of this inspection approximately 320 people were using the service, supported by a team of approximately 120 staff.

A registered manager was in post, however, at the time of this inspection a new manager, now registered with the Care Quality Commission had taken over the role. 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 the previous inspection of this service in January 2014 we found that the registered provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.

During this inspection we found that improvements were needed as to how the registered provider monitored the records of people who used the service and staff. We found that the system for monitoring these records had failed to identify areas of improvement that were needed to ensure that accurate, up to date information was available.

We have made a recommendation that the registered provider further develops their internal monitoring systems.

We have made a recommendation that the registered provider further develops their process for measuring identified risk to people. The current system failed to ensure that there was a consistent approach to measuring and minimising risks to people.

We have made a recommendation that the registered provider further develops their systems for recording information about people’s needs to ensure that up to date information is available at all times. This is because records of people’s needs were not always accurate and up to date.

People told us that they felt safe using the service. Systems were in place to help ensure that people were safeguarded from harm. This included policies and procedures for staff to follow. Staff had undertaken training in safeguarding people and they were confident about reporting any concerns.

Safe recruitment practices were in place which helped ensure that staff only suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed at the service. These safe recruitment procedures were followed. They included obtaining information about applicant’s previous employment and carrying out checks of their fitness to work with people.

The health and safety of people was protected as the registered provider had developed guidance for staff and provided them with training about how to keep people safe. Staff had access to this information and they knew what to do in an emergency situation.

People told us that staff always asked for their consent before delivering any care and support. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the need to ensure that people gave their consent prior to any care and support being delivered.

People were supported by staff who received training and supervision for their role. Staff confirmed that they had received the training and support they needed to carry out their role safely.

People felt they were well supported by the staff in relation to having their nutritional needs met. Care planning documents for people contained information relating to their personal nutritional needs.

People told us that staff delivering their care and support were caring and respectful when they visited their home.

People had access to information about the service. This information was in relation to the standards of care and support they should expect; important telephone numbers and information of what services can be provided.

Policies and procedures were in place to support and guide staff on best practice in their role. Having access to this information helped ensure that people received the care and support they required safely.

Recent changes had been made to the management team arrangements within the service. The registered provider had made the changes to ensure that the registered manager was available at the service at all times. There were a number of detailed monitoring systems in place which included the close monitoring of safeguarding concerns and complaints made about the service. Annual reviews of these systems were in place to ensure that they continued to be effective.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was not always safe.

The process of measuring risks to people required further development to ensure there was sufficient information about how to keep people safe.

People felt safe using the service and staff demonstrated an awareness of safeguarding procedures.

Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure that people’s health and safety was maintained.

Procedures were in place to help people receive their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was effective.

People’s nutritional needs were planned for and met.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of ensuring that people gave their consent to any care and support they received.

People were supported by a staff team who received regular training and supervision for their role.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported in a caring manner.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Information was made available to people as to what standard of service they should expect, including information about local advocacy services.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was responsive.

Records were not always kept up to date about people’s needs.

People were aware of how to make a complaint about the service and complaints were appropriately managed.

People were asked for their views on the service they received.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2016

The service was not always well led.

Quality monitoring systems were not always effective as they failed to identify improvements needed.

A registered manager was in post.

Policies and procedures were in place to offer guidance to staff in carrying out their role safely.