Archived: Agincare UK Bridport

Updated 6 January 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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 was announced and took place on 14 and 15 November 2016. Further phone calls were completed on 29 November and 1 December. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people in their own homes and we needed to be sure that someone would be at the office and able to assist us to arrange home visits.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Before the inspection we reviewed information that we held about the service. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about events and incidents that occur including injuries to people receiving care and safeguarding concerns. We reviewed the notifications that the service had sent to us and contacted the local quality assurance team to obtain their views about the service. The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the provider does well and what improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with five people in their homes and five relatives. We also telephoned 17 people and relatives to obtain their views about the service. We also spoke with seven members of staff. We spoke with the manager and the area manager. We looked at a range of records during the inspection. These included four care records and three staff files. We also looked at information relating to the management of the service including quality assurance audits, policies, risk assessments and staff training

Updated 6 January 2017

Agincare UK Bridport is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 97 people. The service was run from an office in the centre of Bridport.

The service did not have a registered manager at the time of 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. The previous registered manager left the post in November 2014 and the current manager started in post in August 2015. The manager had applied to CQC to become the registered manager for the service and this application was being considered at the time of inspection.

When we last inspected the service in April 2015 we had concerns that there were not sufficient arrangements in place to protect people’s rights and that the systems and processes for measuring and improving quality were not effective. We asked the provider to take action about these concerns. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in both areas.

People generally received their medicines as prescribed but we saw that where people had creams, these were not consistently given as prescribed.

Staff did not consistently have sufficient travel time between their visits, this meant that staff were late or that they were not always able to stay for the full length of time.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with the staff who provided their care and support. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in protecting people from harm and knew how to report any concerns about people's safety or wellbeing. People had individual risk assessments giving staff the guidance and information they needed to support people safely.

People were supported by staff who were recruited safely and were familiar to them. People and relatives felt that staff had the sufficient skills and knowledge to support them and we saw that staff had access to relevant training for their role. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals and we saw that they also had competency checks annually to ensure that they had the necessary skills.

Staff understood how to support people to make choices about the care they received, and encouraged people to make decisions about their care. Assessments reflected that the service was working within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Where people received support from staff to eat and drink sufficiently, we saw that staff offered choices and prepared foods in the way people liked.

People told us that staff who supported them were kind and helpful and we observed that staff supported people in the way they preferred and were aware of people’s likes and dislikes. People told us that they had input into their care plans and we saw that where people had expressed a preference for male or female staff, this was respected.

We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect. We saw that a member of staff knocked and sought the persons consent before entering when they arrived for a visit.

People told us that they received a rota each week letting them know what staff were due to visit at what times. Where changes were needed to visits, or where staff were running late, people told us that the office made contact to let them know.

Peoples care plans were person centred and included details about what people liked and how they wanted to be supported. People told us that they were involved in reviews about their care and we saw that reviews were completed annually, or more frequently if people’s needs changed.

Feedback was gathered from people through telephone surveys and service user surveys. Feedback was used to plan actions to improve the service. People told us that they would be confident to complain if they needed to and we saw that complaints were recorded and responded to appropriately.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service. We were told that the office were easy to contact and friendly and that the manager was approachable. Communication between staff and management was positive. Staff were encouraged to raise issues and discuss queries and felt valued in their role. There were regular staff meetings where practice and ideas were discussed.

Quality assurance systems at the service were regular and information received was used to identify trends or areas for development. Where staff had made suggestions, we saw that these had also been used to make improvements and develop the service.