Butterflies In Romsey

Butterflies of Hampshire is a domiciliary care agency. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene, medicines management and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, the service provided personal care and support to 48 people who lived in their own homes. The service operated two teams of staff, one staff team covered Romsey in Hampshire and the other staff team covered Weymouth and Portland.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported by staff who were exceptionally kind and caring. Feedback about the caring approach of staff was positive. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People received person centred care from staff who developed positive, meaningful relationships with them. People told us staff communicated well with them and they felt at ease with them.

People and relatives said the service was safe. They were supported by staff with the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff had regular training and felt confident in their role.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and mitigated. Environmental risk assessments were also in place, which identified and reduced any environmental risks to people and staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were encouraged to raise any concerns they had or make suggestions to improve the service they received.

There were improvements in how well-led the service was. Additional senior staff had been appointed and new quality systems had been implemented to monitor and improve the service for people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 19 September 2018) with two breaches of the regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Butterflies Home Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to older people living in their own homes in the community within the Hampshire and Dorset area. At the time of the inspection, Butterflies were providing a service to 48 people in the Dorset and Hampshire area to people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss.

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.

Robust governance and quality monitoring systems were not established or embedded within the service. Improvements were required in how the service was managed and how arrangements for accountability and delegation of management tasks were recorded. Monthly audits which included reviewing people’s records, staff files and training were not established which would ensure the quality of the service and identify where improvements could be made.

Risks were not monitored adequately, or completed within care plans to ensure the effective monitoring and mitigation of the risk. This meant the provider was not doing all that was reasonably practicable to manage risks.

Some people self-administered their medicines, whilst others needed support. Although people told us they received their medicines as they should, staff had not received spot checks or competency checks to ensure they were administering medicines safely.

We have made a recommendation about the provider refers to current NICE guidance in regards competency and assessment for staff administering medicines.

There was a risk that people may be moved by staff who had not been assessed as competent to move and assist them. Although staff had in date training from previous employers the registered manager had not assured themselves staff were competent to perform specific tasks through monitoring and direct observations.

Although staff received an induction when they started working for the service, which included shadowing staff they were not receiving regular monitoring, supervision or appraisals.

We have made a recommendation that the provider considers good practice guidance to ensure all staff receive appropriate support, training and supervision and appraisal to carry out their roles.

There was a risk people may not be supported in line with their assessed care needs, as there were shortfalls in the information held within care plans. We observed four care plans which had missing information in regards the support people required. The registered manager told us, “I know that the care plans are not as person centred as I would like but I am working through it.”

Staff were able to tell us how they would report and recognise signs of abuse and had received training in safeguarding. Professionals, staff and relatives told us they had no concerns relating to safeguarding.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People told us that staff sought their consent before providing care. One person said, “They always ask me first”.

Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach towards people. People told us staff knew them well and treated them as individuals. People were consulted about the care they received and were given opportunities to express their views. People were supported to make decisions about things such as what they wanted to eat or drink, what they wanted to wear, and how they wished to spend their day.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Butterflies in Hampshire to make sure staff were of good character and had the necessary skills. There were no gaps in employment history and staff told us they had not been allowed to commence employment until all checks were complete.

Systems were in place for recording complaints within the service. People’s relatives told us they felt confident to raise complaints but had not needed to.

People were supported to access healthcare appointments as and when required and staff followed professional’s advice when supporting people with on-going care needs. Where people were being supported with end of life care, staff worked in partnership with GP and district nurses.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Butterflies in Hampshire provides personal care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of this inspection Butterflies was providing a service to 35 people with a variety of care needs, including people living with physical frailty or memory loss due to the progression of age.

The service had a registered 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

At our last inspection on 2 March 2016, we found four breaches of regulations. The service was non-compliant with safe recruitment procedures, safeguarding procedures were not effective, staff did not receive regular supervision and the provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor the service. The provider sent us an action plan detailing the steps they would take to become compliant with the regulations. During this inspection we found action had been taken but further improvement was required.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Butterflies in Hampshire to make sure staff were of good character and had the necessary skills. However, there were unexplained gaps in staff employment histories. Improvements were needed to ensure that all of the required checks were made before new staff started working at the service.

Quality assurance processes had been developed. However, further improvements were needed to be fully effective.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for managing medicines. Staff were trained in the handling of medicines. However, the registered manager had not assessed that staff were competent to support people with medicines to people in a safe way.

Providers are required to conspicuously display their CQC performance ratings on their website. At the time of our inspection the previous CQC inspection was not displayed on their website. However during our inspection it had been uploaded to their website.

People and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care. However, we found that information about the safe use of bed rails was not included in the risk assessment relating to people's health and well being.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction designed to ensure staff understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits to meet people’s needs.

Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People who used the service felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported to eat and drink when needed. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in peoples care plans. Care plans provided comprehensive information which helped ensure people received personalised care. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.

Staff felt supported by the registered manager and could visit the office to discuss any concerns.

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.

The provider did not follow safe recruitment procedures. Application forms and references were not always completed or requested.

The provider did not have effective arrangements in place to supervise care workers. Formal supervision for experienced and new staff did not always take place.

The provider did not have effective policies and procedures in place. Staff were not supplied with accurate safeguarding information.

The service did not always have effective systems in place to monitor and improve some aspects the quality of the service provided.

The service had sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and competent staff to keep people safe.

People told us they felt safe and were confident in the staff that supported them. People were safe because staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep them safe from harm.

Risks to people had been assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people’s individual needs were being met safely.

People were supported by staff who received regular training and support to help them provide effective care.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their responsibilities to ensure that people who were unable to make their own decisions about their care and support were protected.

People were supported by staff who promoted their independence, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

There was an effective complaints system in place. People told us they were confident to raise any issues about their care and that they would be listened to and addressed.

The culture in the service was open, inclusive and transparent. Staff were supported, felt valued and were listened to by the management team. Staff were confident to raise any concerns they had and bring forward ideas that could make improvements to the service.

We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

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