Archived: SSA Social Care and Community Services

Updated 18 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on the 7 April 2016 and was announced. The provider was given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The inspection was completed by an adult social care inspector.

To help us to plan and identify areas to focus on in the inspection we considered all the information we held about the service. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and improvements they plan to make.

Before our inspection, we reviewed all the information we held about the home. We spoke with the local authority and other professionals to gain further information about the service.

We spoke with six people who used the service, and one relative of a person who used the service.

We spoke with five care workers, a senior care worker and the registered manager. We looked at documentation relating to people who used the service, staff and the management of the service. We looked at six people’s care and support records, including the plans of their care. We also looked at six staff files. We saw the systems used to manage people’s medication, including the storage and records kept. We also looked at the quality assurance systems to check if they were robust and identified areas for improvement.

Updated 18 May 2016

The inspection took place on 7 April 2016 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice in line with our current methodology about inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was previously inspected in May 2014 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at.

SSA Social Care and Community Services provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The agency has an office in the Burngreave area of Sheffield. SSA Social Care and Community Services support people with a wide range of needs. At the time of our inspection there were 43 people receiving personal care from the service.

At the time of our inspection the service had 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.

The service had a policy in place to safeguard people from abuse. This included the types of abuse and how to recognise abuse. It also gave guidance to staff about how to report any concerns. Staff we spoke with told us they had received training in safeguarding and that this was repeated on an annual basis.

We looked at systems in place to manage people’s medicines in a safe way. We saw medication administration records (MARs) were completed, but noted that gaps in recording were evident. We viewed the medication policy and found that this contradicted what happened in practice.

We looked at care plans belonging to people who used the service and found they identified risks associated with people’s care. For example moving and handling.

The service had a staff recruitment system in place to ensure the people employed were safe and suitable for the role they applied for. Pre-employment checks were obtained prior to people commencing employment.

We spoke with staff who told us they received training mainly via the use of videos which they watched and then had a series of questions to answer about the subject.

We were not assured that staff received adequate training solely through watching videos and answering questions as this would not give them the practical knowledge and practice required for some aspects of training such as moving and handling.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We looked at care plans which contained information about the person’s capacity. We saw that mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been made where people lacked capacity to make a decision.

We spoke with people who used the service and looked at their support plans and found that support plans clearly identified the nutritional support people required.

People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and received ongoing healthcare support. We looked at people’s records and found they had received support from healthcare professionals when required.

We looked at a selection of care plans and found they included information regarding people’s likes and dislikes. Staff we spoke with knew how to maintain people’s privacy and dignity.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at a selection of care plans and found they included the desired outcomes for the person.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and the company welcomed them as an opportunity to learn, adapt, improve and provide a better service. The provider encourages concerns and felt they should be dealt with properly and effectively so that people felt confident that their concerns were listened to and acted upon.

We saw audits had been completed to ensure policies and procedures were being followed. However, there was limited information recorded as to what the outcome of the audit was and what action was taken when required. We also found that some policies required updating to reflect current practice within the organisation.

Staff we spoke with felt the service was well led and the registered manager was approachable and listened to them. Staff confirmed they knew their role within the organisation and the role of others. They knew what was expected of them and took accountability at their level.