Archived: Everycare (Bristol) Limited

Updated 29 November 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 October 2016 and was announced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications that had been sent to us and information from the local authority. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

Before our inspections we usually ask the provider to send us provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider completed a PIR and returned it to us.

We visited two people in their home and spoke with two care staff. We visited the provider’s office where we spoke with the registered manager and the director. We spent some time looking at documents and records that related to people’s care and support and the management of the service. We reviewed six people’s care records and five staff records. We also looked at care plans, training records and other records relevant to the quality monitoring and management of the service.

We spoke on the telephone to eight people who used the service and three relatives after the inspection to ask them for their views about the service. We also spoke with four health and social care professionals involved with the service after the inspection to ascertain their views of the service.

Updated 29 November 2016

This inspection took place on 21 October 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office.

Everycare (Bristol) Limited provides personal care to people in Bristol and surrounding areas. They offer a range of services to individuals who live in their own homes and need support or care. At the time of this inspection there were 42 people receiving personal care.

At the last inspection of the service in 20 October 2014 we found the service was meeting the regulations.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were not always recruited safely. All the relevant safety checks had not been completed before staff started work. Some files did not contain appropriate references and gaps in employment had not been explored when staff were interviewed to make sure they were safe to work at the agency. This put people at risk from unsuitable staff.

We found that medicine administration records lacked details around what medicine had been given. This could put people at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribe.

Staff were not being regularly supported and developed. This meant that staff may not have the knowledge and skills to care and support people effectively.

The registered manager did not always submit notifications of significant events to the Care Quality Commission as required by law.

People were protected because staff could describe how they would recognise the potential signs of abuse and were confident in reporting and whistleblowing. The registered manager managed risks to people and always report concerns to the local safeguarding authority as required. People were kept safe by staff who understood the risks to them and could manage those risks.

There were systems in place to keep people safe through risk assessment and the management of risk to people. However, some areas of potential risk to people had not been assessed or recorded.

People received care that reflected their needs and preferences. Care plans reflected the care that people received although not all care plans had been reviewed in accordance with the provider’s policy to make sure the care plans was still appropriate and met their needs.

People were enabled to consent to the care and support they received. People were supported to maintain their day to day health and receive food and drink when required. People were supported by a staff team who were caring and treated people with kindness and respect. Most people received their care visits at the expected times and they were always informed if care staff would be arriving late.

People were enabled to make day to day choices around their care. People's privacy, dignity and independence were protected and promoted by care staff.

People were aware of their care plan and felt involved in its development. People felt able to raise concerns and complaints if needed and told us these were taken seriously and resolved.

People felt involved in the service and some people told us they had contact with managers and office staff. People were supported by a staff team who were motivated and felt supported by the registered manager. Quality assurance systems were in place but needed development in order to identify all areas of improvement required in the service.

We identified that the provider was not meeting regulatory requirements and was in breach of three Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.