Sensitive Care Solutions Ltd

Sensitive Care Solutions Ltd., is a domiciliary care agency, providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of inspection, 50 people were receiving personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were highly complimentary of the support and care they received and told us they would recommend the service to others. A relative told us, “They are proactive, diverse, and they have managed my expectations extremely well.”

Systems and processes were in place to support people's safety. People's needs, including their safety were assessed and monitored. People were supported by staff who had been recruited consistent with the provider's policy. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

People and family members spoke of the reliability of the service, and the consistency of staff who provided their care. People received the support they required with their medicines. Staff worked consistently within the providers policy and procedure for infection prevention and control.

People received good quality care outcomes, supported by the commitment of all staff to deliver person centred care, considering equality characteristics, and the individual needs and preferences of people.

The provider recognised the importance of staff wellbeing, and how the supporting of staff had a positive influence on the quality of the service provided. Staff spoke positively of the management team and the support they received.

The provider's systems and processes monitored the quality of the service. People's views and that of family members and staff were sought through surveys, which were analysed and used to identify where improvements were needed. A range of audits were undertaken to monitor the quality of care provided. Staff were supported through ongoing monitoring and effective communication, which included regular staff meetings to support the delivery of good quality care.

Partnership working with external professionals, and links with local universities and colleges, supported the provider in delivering good outcomes for people, and supported continuous learning and development of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 14 March 2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sensitive Care Solutions Ltd on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People told us they felt safe and well care for.

• People were protected against abuse, neglect and discrimination. Staff ensured people’s safety and acted when required to prevent any harm.

• Risks to people were assessed, managed safely and reviewed regularly.

• People were supported with their medicines in a safe way. When required, they were supported to access health care services.

• People’s dietary needs were assessed. Staff prepared meals and drinks where required.

• Systems were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely, trained, supported to carry out their roles and to monitor their performance.

• People’s rights to make their own decisions were respected. Mental capacity assessments were completed as required. Staff sought consent before care was provided.

• People were supported by kind, caring and consistent staff. People’s diverse needs were met.

• People’s care was personalised to their individual needs and were reviewed regularly.

• People’s privacy and dignity was protected, and their independence was promoted.

• People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. There was a system in place to respond to complaints and advocacy support was available.

• There was an open and a positive culture where the provider, registered manager and staff worked well and communicated effectively.

• People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to give feedback and influence how the service develops.

• The provider had policies and systems in place to monitor the quality of service and action was taken where areas for improvement had been found. Any lessons learnt from incidents were shared with the staff.

• The provider, registered manager and staff team worked well with professionals and external organisations that promoted people’s quality of life.

• The service met the characteristics for a rating of “good” in all key questions.

• More information about our inspection finding is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Requires Improvement (published 27 December 2018).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection. We checked whether the provider had made improvements to meet the legal requirements and regulations with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Follow up: Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.

A registered manager was 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 recruitment checks were not comprehensively in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff. Risk assessments were not comprehensively in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare.

People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care from staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and understood their responsibilities in this area.

We saw that medicines had been supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.

Staff had received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs, though more training was needed on some relevant issues.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Staff were aware to ask people’s consent when they provided personal care.

People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. People told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet any identified needs.

Care plans were individual to the people using the service which helped to ensure that their needs were met.

People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, and they were confident these would be properly followed up.

They were satisfied with how the service was run.

Not all staff felt they had been fully supported in their work by the management of the service.

Policies set out that when a safeguarding incident occurred management needed to take appropriate action by referring to the relevant safeguarding agency. The registered manager was aware these incidents, if they occurred, needed to be reported to us, as legally required.

Management had not carried out comprehensive audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service.