Archived: Housing & Care 21 - Leicester Metropolitan

We inspected this service on 5 December 2016. This was an announced inspection and we telephoned the week prior to our inspection in order to arrange home visits and telephone interviews with people. The service provides care in people’s homes to older people and people with debilitating illness and long term conditions such as dementia. The service is available in the Leicester city area. At the time of the inspection 180 people were being supported by the service.

The service did not have 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. However the provider had recruited a manager and their application with us was being processed.

Some people did not receive their care on time as staff had not been allocated sufficient travel time between calls. The out of hour’s system was not effective in responding to calls in a timely way when called by people of staff.

People felt supported by the service and received a positive response when they contacted the office. The provider used audits to consider any service improvements for both the people using the service and the staff. Staff told us they felt valued by the manager and that the company provided some positive incentives along with services to support their role.

People told us they felt safe with the support they received from the staff. There were arrangements in place to help safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Risk assessments had been completed to keep people safe and provide guidance to staff. There were arrangements in place for administering and the recording of medicines. Where people were supported with their meals, they were given choice and encouraged to maintain their independence.

There were sufficient staff to support people’s needs and the provider ensured the appropriate checks where completed when employing new staff. Positive, caring relationships had been developed with people. Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with respect and dignity.

Staff and people told us that the training enabled the service to be provided safety. The training enabled staff to support people effectively and for staff to understand their roles. All staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records showed people were involved in making decisions about their care and support and their consent was sought and documented.

The provider had up to date complaints policies and we saw how any complaints had been responded to and addressed. We also observed a range of quality assurance systems which the provider used to monitor the quality of service people received. These audits supported the care that was planned and delivered along with ensuring safety to the people and staff.

People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support being provided and that their choices were respected. Staff had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and said they felt valued and supported in their roles. People we spoke with were complimentary about the carers and office staff and felt comfortable with the care being provided.

We looked at the records of six people who used the service and found care plans were detailed and thorough and provided clear guidance to staff about how the persons' care should be delivered.

However, we found that the home did not have suitable arrangements in place for acting in accordance with the best interests of the person when they were unable to consent to the care and treatment being provided.

Staff had been appropriately screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The service had an appropriate quality assurance system.