Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with three people who used the service or their relatives. We also spoke with a care worker, office staff and the manager. We looked at three sets of information about people who used the service and care workers records. There were 30 people using the service when we inspected.If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
We considered our inspection findings to answer five questions we always ask:
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
Is the service safe?
The provider's staff recruitment and selection processes were not robust. References taken up were not adequate for the provider to assure themselves of the suitability of the candidate. This could mean that people who use the service were not protected from unsuitable staff. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirement of the law in relation to recruiting staff. We will make sure that appropriate action is taken by the provider by completing a follow up inspection in the near future.
Is the service caring?
People we spoke with were positive about the care provided by care workers. Comments included, 'they (care workers) are respectful, not rushing and always chatty'. Someone else told us 'I'd miss them if they didn't come' and one said, 'very caring'.
People were involved in making decisions about how they wanted to be cared for. They told us that care staff respected their privacy and dignity, and that they were involved in making choices about their care. A relative told us, 'they'll take her (mother) out for a walk if that's what she wants'.
Is the service responsive?
The service had a complaints policy and procedure. People we spoke with told us they knew how to make a complaint if there was something that they were unhappy with. One person said that they had made a complaint and were satisfied with the way the agency had dealt with their concerns. We looked at how the agency dealt with all the complaints it had received and saw that the responses had been thorough and timely.
We found that care staff continually monitored people's condition and where necessary sought the advice and assistance of other community based health professionals such as GPs and district nurses.
Is the service effective?
Care plans had details of people's needs and the action to take to meet these. These plans were regularly reviewed and updated so that they were meeting people's current needs. Any risks were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people's individual needs were being met safely. People were involved in their assessments of their care needs so they understood the information that had been included.
People received care from staff that were well informed and trained in their needs. However, care staff had not had regular training.
Is the service well-led?
There were not sufficient quality assurance measures in place to monitor the service effectively. There had been no spot checks on care workers, no mechanism of formally contacting people who used the service or an annual survey to identity areas of improvement. The agency had not provided supervision to its care workers. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to quality monitoring arrangements. We will make sure that appropriate action is taken by the provider by completing a follow up inspection in the near future.