• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Amber Healthcare Personnel Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit C2, Grange Court Business Park, Barton Lane, Abingdon, OX14 3NB (01235) 531616

Provided and run by:
Amber Healthcare Personnel Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

26 July 2018

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Amber Healthcare on 26 July 2018. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults. On the day of our inspection 48 people were being supported by the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At our last inspection on 30 March 2017 we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations (2014). In that the service did not always effectively manage the risks associated with people’s care. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines did not always have the competencies checked. The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service.

At this inspection we found the service had made significant improvements to address these concerns. Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

People were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified. People received their medicine as prescribed.

People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people received their care when they expected. Staffing levels and visit schedules were consistently maintained. The service had safe, robust recruitment processes.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. We saw a complaints policy and procedure was in place.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.

People told us the service was friendly, responsive to people’s individual needs and well managed. People knew the managers and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.

6 July 2017

During a routine inspection

We undertook an announced inspection of Amber Healthcare on 6 and 10 July 2017. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. Amber Healthcare provides personal care services to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection 66 people were being supported with personal care from 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.

People’s care records did not always contain up to date and accurate information to enable staff to mitigate the risks associated with people’s care. People received their medicines as prescribed. However, staff responsible for the administration of medicines were not always up to date with their medicine training and had not always had their competencies checked.

The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. However, people’s care needs were not always reassessed following significant changes in their circumstances.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. However, these systems were not always effective. Accidents and incidents were not always reported in line with the provider’s policies and procedures.

People told us they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report all concerns in relation to safeguarding people from abuse. Staff had completed safeguarding training.

The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People benefitted from caring relationships with staff who had a caring approach to their work.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the management team. Staff had access to effective supervision. Staff and the provider shared the visions and values of the service.

The service sought people's views and opinions. People and their relatives told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern.

Where people needed support with eating and drinking they were supported effectively. People were supported to maintain good health. Various health professionals were involved in assessing, planning and evaluating people's care and treatment.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

09 and 10 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Amber Healthcare is a Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) and provides personal care services to people in their own homes.

At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post. 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.

At our last inspection on 22 September 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements relating to records. At this inspection we found the provider had taken action and improvements had been made.

People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff. One person said “They look after me really well, they always ask if there’s anything else to do”.

Staff and relatives told us there were not always sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and this had an impact that resulted in some visits being late. However this has been identified in a recent audit carried out by the service which has been acted on and has resulted in a reduction in late visits.

Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. Records confirmed the service notified the appropriate authorities where concerns relating to peoples wellbeing.

Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe.

Not all staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). However we observed examples of how staff had applied the principles of the act in their day to day work. The coordinators and director were knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

People told us the service responded to their needs and wishes. Comments included; “If I’m not happy they change things” and “They really do listen to me”.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided in the home. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

The provider carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of service. These audits covered all aspects of care including, care plans and assessments, risks, staff processes and training.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the care coordinators. Staff supervision records were up to date and they received annual appraisals. Staff also received regular spot checks that were used to improve practice. Staff told us the care coordinators were approachable and had a ‘can do’ attitude.

22 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we previously inspected Amber Healthcare domiciliary care agency on 03 January 2014, we judged that people were at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care because the service could not evidence that people's personal records were always accurate.

The agency sent us a plan describing what actions they would take to improve the accuracy of the documentation.

We inspected the agency on 22 September to check they had implemented the required changes. We visited the registered office and met with the registered provider. We reviewed care records for six people and we spoke with two members of staff. We spoke with the registered manager the following day.

We found the registered manager had made significant improvements to the care records. Most of the care plans were detailed and provided comprehensive, accurate and up to date guidance. We spoke with staff who told us about the care needs of the people they provided care and support for.

We found that two of the care plans did not provide accurate guidance. We judged there was still a risk of people receiving care that was unsafe. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law.

3 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our visit on 14 October 2013 we found that people's needs had been assessed, however, care and treatment plans needed improvement. Our concerns were particularly with respect to the planning of care for people who used a hoist as well as people who were at risk of developing pressure sores. We were concerned that the lack of detail provided to care workers in care plans could result in them not having sufficient information to deliver people's care appropriately. We also found that care plans were not written in a way that reflected people's individual preferences and did not support them to maintain their independence.

At this follow-up visit we saw that improvements had been made. Care plans were person centred and written in a way that reflected people's preferences when receiving care. The information also informed care workers how to deliver peoples care so as to develop and maintain their independence.

More detailed information was available to care workers in relation to the moving and handling support they were to deliver. We found care workers could describe how they would manage risks and meet people's needs appropriately. People's care records however did not always provide care workers with sufficient information to enable them to deliver care consistently and in line with professional guidance. People's care plans lacked sufficient information specifically in relation to the support they required, for example, to manage their risk of falling, taking medication, preventing pressure sores and managing their health needs.

14 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the service. One person told us 'I am very happy with my care' another person said 'it is mostly the same carers, they are very reliable.' A relative told us 'we have been so lucky to find them their visit is the highlight of my father's day.'

People were assured that their care would be delivered. People and relatives told us that calls were never missed and care workers were seldom late.

We found that people had an assessment of their needs and risks to their health and welfare. We spoke with four staff members and found they were caring, respectful and committed. We saw that care plans did not always accurately reflect people's needs or include important information. Care workers did not always have accurate and sufficient information to know how to support people appropriately to ensure their safety and welfare.

The agency had effective staff selection arrangements in place. We found that all the recruitment checks, as required by the agency, had been undertaken prior to staff undertaking their duties.

The agency had arrangements in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood the local safeguarding arrangements and knew how to respond to any concerns relating to abuse. We saw that investigations had been undertaken in line with the local safeguarding procedures.

We found that staff had received appropriate induction, training and supervision to ensure that they had the skills to undertake their care tasks competently.

The agency had systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided. A customer survey undertaken in June 2013 showed that most people and their relatives were satisfied with the care. Systems were in place to monitor risks and the agency ensured that they learned from investigations. People we spoke with told us they knew how to complain and we found that the agency took account of complaints to improve the service.

10 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 14 people who used the service. All were happy with the quality of service provided and told us staff arrived punctually and stayed for the required length of time. People said the staff in the office always listened to what they had to say and made them feel like "a valued customer". One person told us they had experienced difficulty getting a reply from the office at busy times and often got an engaged signal. The person suggested "it would be better if we could leave a message and receive a call back".

People that used the service told us they were involved in the assessment and planning of their care and were able to make choices and decisions. They said the agency carried out regular assessments and reviews. One person said "my care plan tells staff how I like things done". People confirmed they felt well cared for by the staff. They said staff appeared well trained and were helpful and caring. They commented "lovely girls I don't know what I would do without them", "an excellent service better than others I've used".

People told us that the staff were reliable and that the service was provided flexibly to meet their individual need.