Archived: BSA Care

Updated 13 April 2016

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 21 January 2016. The provider was given notice of our inspection. This was to ensure that staff would be available in the office at the time of our inspection. The inspection was carried out by a single inspector.

Prior to our inspection, we looked at the information the Care Quality Commission (CQC) held about the service. This included any notifications of significant incidents reported to CQC since the service registered in June 2014.

At the time of this inspection, we spoke with the director of the company who was currently responsible for its day-to-day running. We reviewed the care records of the single person using the service and the staff files of the active staff member and another staff member who had been recruited but was not currently active. Additionally, we looked at policies and procedures for the service, along with audit tools, records of staff training and checks, and information relating to the monitoring of service delivery.

Updated 13 April 2016

This inspection took place on 21 January 2016. The inspection was announced. This is the first inspection carried out since the service registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2014.

BSA Care is a domiciliary care service which is registered to provide care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service had recently started providing support to a single person, although their support finished during the course of the inspection. This meant that although we were able to carry out an inspection we could not rate the quality of the service as we had insufficient evidence on which to do so.

The registered manager had recently resigned and the service had started the process of recruiting a new 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The company director was the Nominated Individual and was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service.

The service had suitable safeguarding procedures in place, and followed a safe recruitment process including carrying out DBS checks on staff and following up references. Risk assessments were detailed in their scope, and identified areas such as the environment the person lived in and their mobility. Staff had received training in administering medicines and procedures were in place to record and monitor medicines, however people were not currently being supported in this area.

Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and there was evidence people had consented to their care. However, assessments did not fully consider the capacity of people who may not be able to consent to their care. Staff received extensive training prior to starting with the service and underwent a comprehensive induction.

Care plans were designed to consider people’s needs and wishes, including around healthcare needs and nutrition. We saw evidence that people’s views were sought on their care and people were supported to set goals. We saw that activities and tasks were agreed with people in line with their needs and wishes on a regular basis. Care plans considered people’s views on promoting and protecting their privacy and dignity.

The service had tools in place to monitor the quality of care and gauge customer satisfaction including addressing complaints. However, as the service had not been providing care and support for any substantial period of time, these policies had not yet been enacted.

We saw evidence that staff received regular supervision which sought to deliver good quality care in line with the company’s values. As the service had only recently started providing support to people it was too early in the process to judge whether these were effective.