You are here

Norvic Healthcare Anglia Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Norvic Healthcare Anglia using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 6 January 2017

This inspection took place on 10 November 2016 and was announced. Norvic Healthcare Anglia is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our visit, 37 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in place, who had been the registered manager since October 2010. 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.

The provider had a system to monitor the quality of the service, although this did not always identify where care and staffing records were missing information.

Notifications to provide information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law, had not been completed.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and how to report concerns to the relevant agencies. Individual risks to people’s safety had been assessed by staff and actions had been taken to reduce or remove these risks.

People felt safe using the agency and staff supported them in a way that they preferred. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Most recruitment checks for new staff members were obtained before new staff members started work, although information about previous employment and gaps in employment histories were not always checked.

Medicines records were not always completed to show people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff members who administered medicines had been trained to do so. Staff members received other training, which provided them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff received adequate support from the registered manager and senior staff, which they found helpful.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The service was meeting the requirements of the MCA. Staff members understood the MCA and presumed people had the capacity to make decisions first. Where someone lacked capacity, clearer information was needed to guide staff.

Staff supported people to eat and drink. Staff members helped people to access the advice of health professionals in the community if this was required.

Staff were caring, kind, respectful and courteous. Staff members knew people well, what they liked and how they wanted their care to be provided. Staff responded well to people’s needs and support was available for staff. Care plans contained a varied level of detail in the information to support people with their needs, which did not always provide enough guidance to staff. Staff members knew how to care for people when this information was not recorded but there was a risk that new staff would not have this knowledge.

Most people knew how to make a complaint and these were responded to appropriately by staff. The registered manager was supportive and approachable, and people or other staff members could speak with them at any time.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was not always safe.

There were enough staff to provide people with the support they needed. Not all checks for new staff members were obtained before they started work.

Risks had been assessed and acted on to protect people from harm, people felt safe and staff knew what actions to take if they had concerns.

Medicines records were not always completed and showed gaps when people may not have received their medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff members received enough training to provide people with the care they required.

Staff members presumed people had the ability to make their own decisions. There was limited information only where people may not be able to make decisions for themselves.

Staff had information to help people access advice from health care professionals.

Staff supported people to continue to eat and drink independently.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was caring.

Staff members developed good relationships with people living at the service, which ensured people received the care they wanted in the way they preferred.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People had a varied level of detail about their individual care needs and how staff should help them. There was limited guidance for staff where people had difficulties with their memory or making decisions for themselves.

People knew how to make a complaint and staff resolved these appropriately.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 January 2017

The service was not always well-led.

Audits to monitor the quality of the service provided did not effectively identify issues or take action to address these.

Staff members and the registered manager worked with each other, and people using the service to ensure it was run in the way people wanted.