Archived: Employment 1st UK Limited

Updated 18 December 2014

We undertook an announced inspection to Employment 1st UK Limited on 6 August 2014. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. An inspector undertook the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, this included a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR included information from the provider about areas of good practice and areas for future improvement under each of the five questions.

The day before our inspection visit we undertook phone calls to the person using the service and two care workers to obtain their views on the service provided.

We undertook the inspection visit at the service’s head office. During our inspection we spoke to the registered manager, the operational manager, and the director of the service. We reviewed the care records of the person using the service, reviewed records relating to the management of the service and staffing records.

After the inspection visit we made phone calls to three care workers. We also spoke with the person’s GP and the community matron involved in the person’s care.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 18 December 2014

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, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. 

We undertook an announced inspection on 6 August 2014. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. Employment 1st UK Limited provides personal care to one person in their own home. The provider was in the process of tendering for further contracts with local authorities to provide personal care to more people.

At our last inspection on 23 September 2013 the service met the regulations inspected.

The service had a registered manager who had been in post since July 2012. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were able to recognise signs of potential abuse and would report any concerns to the registered manager. However, the reporting process was not documented and related policies did not contain information about reporting procedures. We could not be assured that appropriate action would be taken if concerns arose. The service did not have a policy relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people that did not have capacity to make decisions.

There were sufficient staff employed to provide a 24 hour service to the person receiving care and the staff had the skills and knowledge to support them.  

A care plan was in place that identified the person’s care needs and how they wished to be supported. Staff were aware of the person’s preferences and provided care in line with them.

Staff liaised with other health and social care professionals involved in the person’s care, and escalated any concerns about their health to either their GP or the emergency services as needed.

The registered manager undertook weekly checks to monitor the quality of the service provided. Regular feedback was obtained from the person using the service to assess their satisfaction and appropriate action was taken to improve the service where required.

The registered manager was accessible to staff if they required additional support or advice. However, we saw that some staff had requested further supervision and we could not be assured that this had been provided. Some staff felt they were not listened to and that their concerns were not taken seriously or acted upon.