Archived: Housing 21 - Kidderminster

3rd Floor, 26 Church Street, Kidderminster, West Midlands, DY10 2AR

Provided and run by:
Housing 21

All Inspections

7 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection on 31 July 2012. We found failure to take proper steps to ensure that people received appropriate care and to fully assess the quality of the services provided.

During this inspection we reviewed the improvements had been taken to address the shortfalls. We found that a range of improvements had been made and that the registered provider was meeting the standards.

We spoke with the three people who were using the service and a relative. We also spoke with the registered manager, the business improvement manager, the quality manager, one acting senior care worker and three care workers. We reviewed relevant documentation including two care records.

Everyone spoke positively about their care workers and felt that they fully supported their care needs. One person said, "X always does everything I ask X to do."

Most of the people spoken with told us that their care was personalised to their needs. People were happy that their care workers adapted very well when care changes were made. One person told us, "They are very good to me and do extras that are not in my care plan."

We found that changes had been made to the way that the standards of the services were monitored. The process ensured that people were regularly asked for their opinions about how they were being supported and about staff conduct.

31 July 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Domiciliary Care Services

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. As part of this programme of targeted inspection we asked people to tell us what it was like to receive services from this agency. The inspection was led by a Care Quality Commission inspector and involved using a person who has had direct experience of using the services of a domiciliary care agency. This 'expert by experience' took part in telephone surveys of people who used the agency and their findings were incorporated into this report.

The inspection process included a visit to the office where we spoke with the registered manager. We reviewed care files of people who were using the service and supporting documentation about the standards of care they would expect to receive. Recordings concerning adverse incidents, complaints and quality were also looked at. We made visits to four people's homes and asked them or their relatives about the standards of care people were receiving. The Expert by Experience made 15 telephone calls to people or their relatives. During our visits to people's homes we held face to face discussions with three care workers and later conducted three telephone interviews with care workers.

Without exception the people we spoke with told us that care workers promoted their dignity and respect and they were able to influence how their care was provided. One relative who we asked if staff were respectful said:

'Oh yes always. They have developed a rapport with X, X likes that.'

People told us they were happy with the standards of care they received from care workers when they were in their homes. One person said:

'Very good, they are pretty good to me.'

We were told by some people that they received their care late because care workers had arrived later than the designated time and in some instances they did not arrive at all. This meant that people were not receiving safe or appropriate standards of care.

We were told that people who were using the service felt safe. They said that care workers carried identification with them so they could confirm who they were.

People told us the regular care workers knew what their needs were and they felt satisfied that care workers had received appropriate training to carry out their roles effectively. Some people told us they were dissatisfied with the high number of newly appointed care workers because the person would have to tell them what they needed to do for them.

People told us they were asked for their opinions about the quality of the services provided to them. We identified that there was a system in place for auditing and monitoring the quality of the services. However, there were gaps in the registered provider's processes for monitoring quality. We found that senior agency staff and the registered manager were failing to identify a trend of poor practices that had not been identified as, or treated as a formal complaint. There was evidence that formal complaints received were not being dealt with in appropriate way.

30 March 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service they receive. Comments included: "Carers are amazing, very kind and considerate'. 'Excellent carers to my relative, have a good understanding of his needs, especially about his medication'. 'Very happy with the carers, always polite and professional'.

People told us that care workers turn up on time, and stay for the full amount of time.

People told us they had been consulted about their care needs, and most felt their care plan identified their support needs. Care workers we spoke told us there had been improvements to the care plans. We found further improvements were still needed so that care plans had sufficient details to guide care workers in the support needed by the person. We saw that the agency were aware of and making the necessary changes to the way they record information.

The care workers we spoke with were able to identify safeguarding scenarios and told us how they would report concerns. The staff files we looked at showed that staff receive regular training and have regular supervision. Care workers felt well supported and told us 'Things had improved' and 'the support is better'.