Archived: Digital Home Visits -TCB - Greenwich

Vida London is a domiciliary care service, providing personal care to people living in London.

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. On the day of the site visit, eight people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.

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

People’s medicines were not always being managed safely. The systems in place to assess the risks to people’s safety were inconsistent, and ways to mitigate risks were not always clear.

Staff recruitment procedures were not always fully robust. Not all staff had undergone all the relevant pre-employment checks as part of their recruitment.

The management of safety, risk were not always effective.

People trusted the staff and felt safe with them. Staff understood the procedures they needed to follow if they suspected abuse.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to preventing and controlling infections.

The registered manager gave us examples of where they had learned lessons from past experiences and how this had improved the service overall.

People using the service were positive about the quality of care they received, and systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of people’s care provision.

People who used the service, their relatives and staff thought highly of the newly registered manager and the positive impact they were having at 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. (Report published on 16 May 2019).

Why we inspected

We had concerns about the management of medicines and risk which arose from a recent inspection of a service run by the same provider. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements.

We have identified two breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and governance of the service at this inspection. We have also made a recommendation regarding staff recruitment.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Not everyone using Vida London receives this regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection there were approximately 20 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they were well treated by the staff and felt safe with them. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from potential abuse, bullying or discrimination. Staff knew what to look out for that might indicate a person was being abused.

Risks had been identified, with the input from the person where possible and were recorded in people’s care plans. Ways to reduce these risks had been explored and were being followed appropriately.

Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people’s diversity. Staff challenged discriminatory practice.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff understood the way people expressed their views and the service made sure no one was disadvantaged because of the different ways people communicated.

Everyone had an individual plan of care which was reviewed on a regular basis.

All staff had clear roles and responsibilities and understood the values of the service.

Staff had been trained in the management of medicines and suitable policies and systems were in place. People told us they were satisfied with the support they received to manage their medicines where this was part of their care package.

Staff were positive about working for Vida London and told us they appreciated the support, encouragement and challenge they received from the management.

Both people who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements. Staff told us that the management listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints if they were unhappy with their care. People knew how to make a complaint although some people remained hesitant to do this.

The management team worked in partnership with other organisations to support care provision, service development and joined-up care.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection this service was rated ‘Requires improvement’ (report published on 17 March 2018). We identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This breach was in relation to supporting staff. At this inspection we found that the registered provider had complied with these breaches.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. As a result of this inspection the rating is now ‘Good’.

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’. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

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

Vida London is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community across four London boroughs. It provides a service to adults and younger people. The provider operated their service digitally and information was stored and accessed electronically. At the time of the inspection 83 people were using the service.

.

The service had a registered manager who was on site during both days of the inspection. 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 had mixed views about the punctuality and the consistency of staff. Systems were in place to monitor this and the provider acted on people’s concerns.

Background checks were carried on staff before they began work. Staff had received an induction and took part in a programme of training; however they had not received regular supervision. People spoke favourably about the caring nature of staff who took time to listen to them and said that staff upheld their dignity and privacy.

People were supported with their nutrition and given support with their medicines when this was needed. Where people required advice and treatment from health professionals they had access to healthcare services and their records reflected this.

Safeguarding procedures were followed when staff suspected people were at risk of abuse and staff knew how to report any concerns. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Risk assessments contained guidance for staff to follow but records were not always updated to ensure staff had all the information they required to reduce the likelihood of harm.

New technology was being designed, piloted and updated to reflect people’s needs and provide a more streamlined and effective service. Staff held mobile phones and could access and update people’s records via the provider’s app. The provider had been recognised for the design of the new app in several articles and television interviews.

Care records highlighted people’s individual needs and lifestyle choices; however information was not available in an easy read format so they could better understand the services they received.

People had mixed views about the accessibility of the office staff. Their experiences of using the service had been sought through the use of surveys and spot checks in peoples’ homes.

Quality assurance systems were in place but did not identify the issues we found. The provider worked in partnership with other organisations to benchmark their service and kept up to date with relevant good practice. Staff spoke positively about the overall management of the service and they were asked for their feedback about what the service could do better.

We made two recommendations about information being accessible to people and risk management. We found one breach of regulations relating to staff supervision.