Archived: Mer Ka Barn, Sindles Farm

At the time of our visit there were approximately 260 people using the service. We sought feedback from 81 people via the use of questionnaires and an expert by experience. Of this 81, 42 people or their relatives responded. The majority of people responded positively and told us that the received the care and support they needed by staff who had the right skills and knowledge. Comments included 'They do my personal care very well', 'Their visits brighten my day'.

We also spoke with seven members of staff including care staff, risk assessors, the person employed to manage quality, recruitment and training and the registered manager. Most staff we spoke with were positive about the agency and told us the care plans provided good information. Some staff and people expressed concerns about the communication from the office, telling us that when carers are running late, people are not always advised of this by the office.

At our previous inspection we found the agency were non-compliant in the following areas:

' Management of medicines

' Requirements relating to workers

' Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

' Complaints

' Records.

We told the agency to send us an action plan detailing what action they would take to ensure they achieved compliance. We received this in July 2013 and they told us they would achieve compliance by December 2013.

At this inspection we found that the agency had taken appropriate action and were now achieving compliance in these areas.

Prior to this inspection we received some information of concern relating to staff induction, training and risk assessments. We reviewed these areas and found that staff induction was appropriate and all staff we spoke with told us this was good. Staff had received training although the provider had identified a need to improve the moving and handling training to ensure a practical element was included. They had a plan in place to address this. Records were detailed and risk assessments were in place where needed.

Care needs were planned, however, records were not always easy to follow. Staff we spoke with told us they did not always have enough time to read records but demonstrated good knowledge of the people they supported.

There was an effective system in place to manage the risks associated with the administration of medicines, however, the information in care records did not provide sufficient guidance to staff.

Appropriate checks were not always carried out before people began work, meaning that people were at risk of being supported by staff that were unsuitably skilled and experienced.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to manage complaints and did not demonstrate that they responded appropriately. One relative told us of a concern they had and said 'it's constantly raised with community Angels, it's a waste of time, it doesn't make a difference'.

The provider had some systems in place, however they were not effective in assessing and monitoring the quality of service that people receive. All people we spoke with and all relatives we spoke with told us they are sent surveys to complete but had never received any feedback from these.

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People's specific wishes were recorded and they said that they were '100% happy with the care.'

The service knew how to protect people from all forms of abuse. Staff were appropriately trained and confident to raise concerns. Relatives of people who use the service told us that they had confidence in the care staff.

Staff had received induction and training relevant to the care that they were delivering. Staff performance was regularly reviewed through supervision. Good practice and consistent performance was recognised and rewarded by the provider this included feedback from people using the service.

The provider had developed a system of policies and procedures to underpin the delivery of the service. Quality checks were in place to seek people's views and an external audit by the local authority that funded the care of many of the people reported that the service scored 92% for overall quality of the service compared to 87% for similar services.