Archived: Allied Healthcare Penzance

Updated 23 October 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

The inspection took place on 28 September 2018. The inspection was announced a few days in advance in accordance with the Care Quality Commission’s current procedures for inspecting domiciliary care services. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included past reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we visited the provider’s office and spoke with the manager, office administrator, two operations support officers, the regional managing director and the trainer. We looked at care records relating to the care of four individuals, staff recruitment files, staff duty rosters, staff training records and records relating to the running of the service. We visited three people in their homes to seek their views and experiences of receiving a service from Allied Healthcare.

Prior to the inspection we spoke with 10 people who receive a service, and three relatives on the telephone. After the inspection we spoke with two relatives and four staff.

Updated 23 October 2018

We carried out this inspection on 28 September 2018. The inspection was announced a few days in advance in accordance with the Care Quality Commission’s current procedures for inspecting domiciliary care services. At the last inspection, in May 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Allied Healthcare is a community service that provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs in Helston and surrounding areas. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and give support with meals. At the time of our inspection 71 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately, through Cornwall Council or NHS funding.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe using the service and told us, “We tend to have the same carers,” “They are lovely girls. I feel quite safe with them they do my shopping and I am happy with it” and “Very good, we have had them (staff) a long time and would not change them for the world.”

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs.

Care plans provided staff with direction and guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs and wishes. These care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes in people’s needs were communicated to staff. Assessments were carried out to identify any risks to the person using the service and to the staff supporting them. This included any environmental risks in people’s homes and any risks in relation to the care and support needs of the person.

People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke well of staff, comments included, “I do not know what I would do without them, they (staff) are wonderful people” and “They (staff) are very kind and there is never any rush.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

The management had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. However, there were some consent forms which had been signed by family members who did not have the legal power to do this. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

The service had robust recruitment practices, which meant staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Training records showed staff had been provided with all the necessary training which had been refreshed regularly. Staff told us they found the training to be beneficial to their role.

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and received regular supervision, appraisals and training. Staff were complimentary about the management team and how they were supported to carry out their work. The management team were also clearly committed to providing a good service for people. Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff told us, “The office are very good at letting us know of any changes” and “You can always get support when you need it.”

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. People were provided with information on how to raise any concerns they may have. Regular contact was made with people to help ensure they were happy with the service they received.

The service had recently implemented a new electronic call monitoring system which allowed the management team to monitor the visits made by staff in real time. Any visit that had not been carried out by staff at the expected time turned red on the system, immediately alerting office staff to this so that timely action could be taken. Where the provider had identified areas that required improvement, actions had been promptly taken to improve the quality of the service provided.