Archived: Alee Care

During the inspection we worked to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.

Is the service safe?

The staff we spoke with understood the procedures they needed to follow to ensure that people were safe. They were able to describe the different ways that people might experience abuse and the correct steps to take if they were concerned that abuse had taken place.

We discussed the provider's responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider confirmed they would make staff aware of the potential implications of this Act when assisting people in their own homes.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learn from events such as accidents, incidents and complaints. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service continually improve.

The provider could demonstrate that that the staff employed to work at the service were suitable and there was an ongoing training programme to give staff the skills and experience needed to support the people living there. We will check this has been completed on our next inspection.

Is the service effective?

People all had an individual care plan which set out their care needs. People we spoke with told us they had been involved in their original assessment of care. One person said 'I had an interview, I was given information and we discussed my expectations.' A relative told us 'they went through everything with us at the beginning.'

Staff told us they always looked at people's care plans before they provided care for a person.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with were happy with the way staff supported them. One relative told us "they do everything we ask them to do.' Another person told us 'so far I am quite happy with my carer they have been very efficient and done everything I wanted.'

People told us they were most happy when they had the same carer looking after them or their relative. One person told us "I want to have the same carer this is important to me but sometimes different carers turn up and that's not so good." Another said 'I want to have the same carer, I have made that clear from the start.'

Is the service responsive?

People said that they would make a complaint if they wanted to. People we spoke with told us they would speak with the manager if they had any problems. One person said "If I had a problem I would call the office.' Another said 'I will speak my mind if I'm unhappy.'

People who used the service were asked to give their views in yearly surveys and during regular telephone reviews. However, these calls had not been formally noted so we were unable to see how the service listened to people and acted on their comments to make improvements to peoples care.

Is the service well led?

The service had a system to assure the quality of service they provided. Staff were able to provide feedback to their managers through supervision and team meetings.

During our inspection in October 2013 we found the provider did not meet three of the Care Quality Commissions (CQC) essential standards. We found peoples care may not have been delivered to an appropriate standard because some staff had not been suitably trained in key areas of their role. We saw not all the relevant staff recruitment checks had been carried out on some of the carers the service employed and the provider had not developed enough effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of care and support that people received.

The provider sent us an action plan to tell us what they were going to do to improve and meet the CQC standards.

During our most recent visit we found the provider was making improvements in their staff training and that staff had received training in key areas of their role. We also saw improvements in how recruitment checks had been carried out and how the service monitored the quality of care and support that people received.

People said their care workers were reliable, kind and courteous, always respectful and were usually on time. One person told us their care worker was "very good, efficient and friendly' and another person told us their care worker "is very helpful' and 'I'm very happy with them'.

We spoke to the provider, the care coordinator and two care workers. The provider told us a new care coordinator had been employed to help put new systems in place to improve the care and support people received. They also explained they were looking to change the way they were registered with the Care Quality Commission and if the business expanded, would be looking to employ a registered manager to help run the service.

Although people said they were satisfied with the care they received from Alee Care we found peoples care may not always be delivered to an appropriate standard because some staff had not been suitably trained in key areas of their role, not all the relavant recruitment checks had been carried out on some of the carers the service employed and the provider had not developed enough effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of care and support that people received.

People said that their care workers were reliable, kind and courteous, always respectful and were usually on time. One person told us their care worker was "absolutely brilliant' and another person told us their care worker "will do everything they have to do and stay over their time if necessary'.

People we spoke with said they all knew how to make a complaint and most people told us they had never needed to as any issues had been dealt with by the staff in the office.

We spoke to the registered manager, the care coordinator and two care workers. We found there were effective recruitment procedures in place for new staff and existing staff told us they felt properly supported to provide care to people using the service.

However, although people who used the service told us they were happy with the support they received; we found that important information relating to some people's care and support needs was not readily available or accessible to staff which might mean these individuals' needs may not always be fully met.