Archived: Fairway Homecare Limited

Fairway Home Care is a domiciliary care service which is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection we were told that Fairway Home Care was providing care and support to 21 people. However, some of these people were only receiving support with domestic tasks such as shopping and household cleaning of which we do not regulate. Therefore, we found that 12 people were receiving support with the regulated activity; personal care.

Fairway Home Care is required to have a register 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection.

The service was not always safe because people and staff were not always protected from avoidable harm. The provider’s recruitment processes were not always robust and some of the risks associated with people’s care needs had not always been assessed or recorded effectively. Furthermore, whilst people were included in the planning and review of their care; their care plans and risk assessments did not always reflect their individual needs to ensure they received person-centred care.

People’s rights were not always protected because staff, including the registered manager did not always understand their responsibilities related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided to people were not always used effectively to identify or manage risks and it was unclear how the outcome of these processes had been used to drive improvements.

People were supported by staff that were reliable and punctual in meeting their needs and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People’s needs were also met by staff that were trained and supported to carry out their role including supporting people with safe medication management. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of signs and symptoms of abuse and knew what the reporting procedures were.

People knew how to complain if they were unhappy and were confident that their concerns would be acted upon in a timely manner. Staff also felt supported in their work by an approachable management team that promoted an open and transparent culture within the service.

We looked at information to help us gather evidence about the quality of the provider's care and support to people that lived there. On the day of our inspection, the provider told us that 17 people received care and support in their own homes.

We spoke with the registered manager, training co-ordinator and four staff members. We also spoke with eight people or their relatives that used the service. Our conversations with people helped us to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? and, Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

We asked people that used the service if they felt safe with staff supporting them in their own homes. All of them told us that they felt safe. One person told us, 'I feel safe with the care staff visiting me in my home.'

There was a system in place to record accidents and incidents. All staff spoken with told us that they were aware of the reporting system. No accidents and incidents were since our last inspection in January 2014.

There was a system in place to handle concerns and complaints. The provider told us that four complaints had been received since our last inspection. We saw that these had either been investigated or resolved or were in the process of being investigated. We noted that the registered manager had not told us as they are required to do so about some concerns that related to safeguarding vulnerable people. However, we did see that they had discussed issues as needed with the Local Authority.

We sampled some staff files and found that they all contained the required pre-employment checks. This meant that the provider took steps to ensure that people employed were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

All of the staff spoken with were aware of what abuse was and how they should report any concern that they had. One staff member told us, 'We completed training on safeguarding people and what to do if we had any concern.' This meant that staff had the information they needed to respond to an allegation of abuse.

We found that some people's medication records were not robust but saw that action had recently been taken to ensure that safe and appropriate records were kept as required.

As part of our inspection we asked the registered manger about the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They told us that they would make the appropriate referrals for people if they had any concerns such as a person leaving their door unlocked and insecure. This meant that the registered manager was aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act and protecting people from the risk of harm.

Is the service effective?

All of the people that we spoke with told us that they felt the service was effective in meeting their needs. One person told us, 'I am happy with the service. I've had no missed visits. If the staff run a bit late they let me know.'

We saw that people's care plans gave staff the information that they needed to meet people's needs. One staff member told us, 'People's care plans have improved and they are well organised now.'

Is the service caring?

All of the people spoken with told us they thought the staff members were kind and caring. One person we spoke with told us, 'I can't fault them. The carer is like family to us. We are happy.'

People that used the service and their relatives were asked for feedback about the quality of the service provided.

Is the service responsive?

All of the people spoken with told us they had no concerns or complaints. One relative told us, 'I find the staff approachable. If I had any concerns I would speak with them or phone the office.'

Is the service well led?

We saw documented evidence that showed that the provider worked with other

health care professionals and made referrals for advice and guidance when needed.

The service had a quality assurance system. We saw evidence that staff spot checks were completed. We also saw that people's log sheets that staff completed were audited by the registered manager. However, we found that people's medication records were not audited as they should have been.

All of the staff told us that they felt supported in their job role by the registered manager.

We found that people were treated with respect and dignity. One relative told us, 'All the care staff are polite and treat my family member with dignity. They always cover them with a towel when helping them with personal care.'

We found that people had an initial assessment of their needs and that this had been put into a care plan. However, we found that people's care and welfare needs were not always met at the agreed times for visits.

We found that processes were in place to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse. One relative told us, 'I am happy with my relatives care and feel that they are safe there. I have no concerns.'

We saw that the provider had an effective recruitment and selection process in place. We found that pre-employment checks were completed on staff to make sure that they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

We found that effective systems to monitor the quality of the services provided so that actions, when needed, could be made to make improvements were not in place.