You are here

Archived: Interserve Healthcare - Leicester Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

This inspection took place on 6 September 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours' notice of our visit because the location provides domiciliary care and we needed to make sure there would be someone in the office at the time of our visit.

Interserve Healthcare - Leicester is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care to people who wish to remain independent in their own homes. The agency provides services throughout Leicester and surrounding areas and provides for people with complex healthcare and social care needs. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people using the service who were supported by 73 staff.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

This was our first inspection of the service since they registered with us.

There were good systems and processes in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risk had been undertaken and there were clear instructions for staff on what action to take in order to mitigate them. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and what action to take to keep people safe.

The provider had arrangements in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff supported people to manage their medicines safely.

People, their relatives and staff felt there had been instances where there were not enough staff through rota errors or unavailability of staff to cover at short-notice. The registered manager had recently recruited more staff to ensure there were always enough staff to meet people's needs as detailed in their care plans. The registered manager followed the provider's safe recruitment practices. This helped to ensure people were cared for by staff who were suitable for the role.

Staff usually arrived on time and stayed for the time allocated. People were cared for by suitably trained staff which helped to keep them safe and meet their needs. Staff understood people's needs and complex health conditions.

Staff understood the relevant requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how it applied to people in their care. People's individuality was at the centre of how their care was delivered. They were fully involved in making decisions about their care.

Staff worked with both internal and external healthcare professionals to obtain specialist advice and support about people's care. Staff supported people to manage their complex health conditions, including nutrition and hydration and general health and well-being.

People's care plans were person centred, detailed and written in a way that described their individual care and support needs in detail. These were reviewed and changes made where required. This meant that everyone was clear about how people were to be supported and their personal objectives met. People using the service and those who were important to them were actively involved in deciding how they wanted their care and support to be delivered.

The provider had a complaints policy which provided people and their relatives with clear information about how to raise any concerns and how they would be managed. People and their relatives confirmed they felt comfortable to raise concerns and complaints to the provider.

People, their relatives and staff had low confidence in the communication and consistency of the management team on a day-to-day basis. People told us they had not been empowered to share their views of the service although they did have opportunity to feedback on their care individually. People and relatives had little contact or opportunity to discuss concerns with the registered manager. We found the registered manager and provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care. These included audits of key aspects of the service and spot checks of staff working practices. However, we found that audits and observations of working practices were not consistently carried out to ensure staff were providing quality care. Staff we spoke with did not feel they received the consistent supervision and support they needed to develop within their role. Further improvements were needed to ensure outcomes of audits were actioned in a timely way.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. We saw that action was taken in response to incidents and accidents to maintain the safety of people and staff. People were supported to receive their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received specialised and general training and development to enable them to be effective in their roles. Staff were supported through spot checks and telephone calls with the office. The provider ensured people's best interests were managed and staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People's needs were regularly assessed and referrals made to other health professionals when required to ensure their health and well-being needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and friendly. Staff knew the people they were caring for including their personal preferences, likes and dislikes.People's privacy and dignity were respected. People were involved in making decisions about how they wanted their care to be provided.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was responsive.

Assessments were undertaken and care plans developed to identify people's care and support needs. Staff were aware of people's preferences and how best to meet those needs. There was system in place to manage complaints and concerns. People felt comfortable in raising concerns and complaints with the registered manager.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 15 November 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

People, their relatives and staff did not always feel confident in the day-to-day management of the service. People and their relatives felt that improvement was needed in the quality of communication from the management team. People and their relatives did not feel empowered to share their views about the service. There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of care people although these were not consistently applied.