You are here

4319 Fountain Care Ltd Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

We undertook an announced inspection of 4319 Fountain Care Ltd on 6 and 7 December 2016. We gave the provider notice before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to make sure someone would be available to speak with us.

4319 Fountain Care Ltd provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care. People using the service were mainly older people who had a range of needs such as physical disabilities and dementia. At the time of our inspection 21 people were receiving personal care in their home. The care had either been funded by their local authority, Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) or people were paying for their own care.

This was 4319 Fountain Care Ltd’s first inspection at this location since registering in 2015.

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.

There were some systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. However, these needed to expand to cover more aspects of the service and identify where improvements needed to be made.

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

There were medicine procedures in place and care workers received medicines training. However, we had identified improvements that needed to be made.

We made a recommendation for the provider to seek national guidance on medicine management.

People gave us complimentary comments about the service they received. People felt well looked after.

People told us they felt safe when they received support and the provider had policies and procedures in place to deal with any concerns that were raised about the care provided.

Care workers received an induction and shadowing period before delivering care and support to people. They received the training and support they needed to care for people. Training in the important areas needed to be booked in a timely manner to ensure care workers were always up to date.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned to meet these needs. The care reflected personal preferences and supported people in a person centred way.

The risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and there were plans to maintain individual people's safety.

People's healthcare needs were monitored and the service liaised with other professionals to make sure these were met.

There was a complaints procedure in place which the provider followed. People felt confident that if they raised a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns addressed.

People had consented to their care and treatment and were involved in decisions about their care.

There were enough care workers to support people. Recruitment procedures were designed to ensure care workers were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We received positive feedback about the registered manager and how they supported the care workers in their role.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

Some aspects of the service were not safe.

Care workers had training on medicine management and audits were carried out on medicine records. However, we recommended for the provider to seek national guidance on good medicine management.

There were appropriate procedures to safeguard people. Care workers knew how to respond if they had concerns about a person’s welfare or safety.

The risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and there were plans to maintain people's safety.

There were enough care workers to support people. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure care workers were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 January 2017

The service was effective.

Care workers received the training and support they needed to care

for people safely. Moving and handling practical training needed to be provided in a timely way.

People had consented to their care and treatment and were involved in decisions about their care.

People's healthcare needs were monitored and the care workers liaised with other professionals to make sure these were met.

People were supported with their meals and drinks.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 January 2017

The service was caring.

People told us they had a good relationship with their care workers and usually had the same regular care workers.

Guidance on how to support people was individual to them and noted personal preferences.

People told us the care workers treated them with respect and ensured their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 January 2017

The service was responsive.

People's individual needs had been assessed and recorded in their care plans prior to receiving a service, and were regularly reviewed.

There was a complaints policy in place. People knew how to make a complaint, and felt confident that their concerns would be addressed appropriately.

The service regularly conducted satisfaction surveys for people and their relatives. These provided information about the quality of the service provided.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 17 January 2017

Some aspects of the service were not well led.

There were some systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. However, this needed to be expanded to work towards continuous improvement.

Feedback on the service and the registered manager was positive.