All inspections: Chalkface Recruitment Limited

We undertook an announced inspection of Chalkface Recruitment Limited on 11 August 2015. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and staff might be out visiting people.

Chalkface Recruitment Limited provides a range of services to people in their own home including personal care. At the time of our inspection four people were receiving personal care in their home. The care had either been funded by their local authority or people were paying for their own care.

We attempted to contact two relatives to ask their feedback but we could only speak to one person. We also attempted to contact five care workers but were only able to speak to one care worker.

We last inspected the service on 31 January 2014. At the last inspection there were no breaches of the Regulations we were reviewing.

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.

There was a policy in place in relation to medicines but the medicine administration record (MAR) charts was not completed accurately and did not provide the care workers with appropriate guidance on how medicines should be administered.

The provider has a policy and training in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 but they did not have procedures in place to ensure people using the service had been assessed as to whether they were able to make decisions about their lives.

The provider had limited systems in place to monitor the quality of the care provided and these did not provide appropriate information to identify issues with the quality of the service.

The relative we spoke with felt their family member was safe when they received care in their home. The provider had policies and procedures in place to respond to any concerns raised relating to the care provided.

The number of care workers required for each visit was identified through the assessment of the person’s care needs and following a discussion with the person using the service and their relatives. There was an effective recruitment process in place.

Staff had received the necessary training and support to enable them to provide care safely and to an appropriate standard.

Assessments were carried out to identify each person’s care needs before they started to receive care in their home. This information was used to develop the support plan for the person.

The relative we spoke with was happy with the care provided and felt the care workers treated their family member with dignity and respect. Support plans identified the person’s cultural and religious needs. Care workers support people using the service to be involved in a range of activities.

The provider had processes in place for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents. A range of risk assessments were in place in the support folders in relation to the care being provided.

Care workers completed a record of the care and support provided during each visit.

There was a complaints process in place and the relative told us they knew who to contact at the office if they had a concern. A feedback form was sent to the person’s family twice a year and there were regular house meetings to discuss the care being provided.

We found breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 which related to the management of medicines, Mental Capacity Act and quality assurance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

At our inspection on 5 August 2013 we found that people's support plans and risk assessments were out of date and did not contain sufficient detail or reflect their current needs. In addition to this we found that inadequate arrangements were in place to safeguard the people using the service from abuse. For example, staff training in relation to safeguarding and restraint was out of date and policies and procedures did not offer sufficient guidance for staff to ensure that people were kept safe. We found that staff training in a variety of other topics was out of date and there was limited evidence of staff supervision and appraisal taking place to support staff in their roles. There was also a lack of quality monitoring taking place to ensure that improvements were made to the service where required.

During this inspection we spoke with the provider, the manager of the service and one other member of staff. We looked at the care records for the three people using the service and found detailed support plans and risk assessments that were up to date and had been reviewed as people's needs changed.

We found that arrangements had been improved to ensure that people using the service were protected from abuse. For example, all staff had completed training and policies and procedures had been updated.

Staff training had been updated and there were systems in place to monitor staff training needs to ensure these were addressed as and when required. We also saw that staff were having regular supervision meetings with their line manager and each staff member had a personal development plan in place to assess their performance and identify any learning needs.

Quality monitoring systems had been implemented to ensure people's needs were met and areas of improvement identified and addressed.

At our previous inspection on 13 November 2012 we found that people's care plans were not up to date and did not accurately reflect their needs. We also found that identified risks were not always assessed to ensure that action was taken to minimise them and risk assessments had not been reviewed to ensure they reflected people's current needs.

At the time of this inspection there were three people using the service. We were unable to speak with people as they had complex needs which meant they could not share their views with us. However, we spoke with their relatives, staff and looked at care records to find out about their experiences of the service.

We spoke with the provider, two other members of staff and two relatives. The relatives we spoke with were positive about the support provided by staff and one said, 'I am very happy with the carers, I have no complaints.' We found that people or their representatives signed their consent to the agreed care and support and that people were supported to participate in social and leisure activities of their choice.

We found that care plans and risk assessments did not contain sufficient detail to ensure that they adequately informed staff about the action they should take to meet people's needs effectively.

Staff had not received appropriate training including safeguarding and control and restraint training which meant that they were not suitably equipped with the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs effectively. We also found that staff did not receive appropriate support in terms of formal supervision and appraisal.

The service did not have effective quality assurance systems in place.

The agency was only providing a service for two people on a regular basis at the time of the inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We spoke to the manager of the service and two members of staff and looked at records including people's care records.

People were provided with appropriate information about the care and support they would receive. They were supported to engage in activities in their local community and maintain their independence. People's care records were not up to date and therefore did not provide staff with sufficient information to ensure that they could meet people's needs effectively.

Not all staff had received safeguarding training. Therefore some staff may not have been equipped with the skills and knowledge to effectively safeguard the people they were caring for. Staff had also not received training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and therefore people were not supported to gain adequate knowledge to enable them to work with people effectively.

The service had systems in place to ensure that all the appropriate checks were completed before staff commenced employment.

There was an appropriate complaints system in place to enable people to raise any concerns they had about the service.

Archived: Chalkface Recruitment Limited

All Inspections

11 August 2015

During a routine inspection

31 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

5 August 2013

During a routine inspection

13 November 2012

During a routine inspection