Background to this inspection
Updated
15 June 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 checked 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.
This inspection took place on 29 March 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice so we could ensure that care records and staff were available to help inform our inspection. The inspection was conducted by an 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 care service.
Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Due to technical problems a PIR was not available and we took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. As part of our inspection, we reviewed the information we already held about the provider. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents that occur, including serious injuries to people receiving care and any safeguarding matters. These help us to plan our inspection.
As part of our inspection, we spoke with and gathered feedback from 15 people using the service, three relatives and four healthcare professionals. We also spoke with the registered manager, an assistant manager, ten care staff and two home care organisers. The home care organisers were responsible for supporting staff and managing aspects of the service within set local areas. We sampled four paper records and six electronic records relating to people’s care and support. We also sampled further electronic records relating to the support people received from the service to help inform our judgements in addition to records maintained by the service about training and quality assurance.
Updated
15 June 2017
This inspection took place on 29 March 2017 and was announced. We previously inspected the service in December 2015 and identified a breach of the regulations because systems in place to monitor and manage the quality and safety of the service were not effective. After the inspection, the registered manager wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At this inspection, we identified improvements in this area and found that all regulations were now being met.
North Birmingham Home Care provides a short term enablement service of care and support to people in their own homes. The service also provides support to people living in extra care schemes. At the time of our inspection, there were 142 people receiving the enablement service and 11 people receiving support through the extra care scheme.
There was a registered manager in place who was present throughout our 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 were safe receiving support from staff who had access to information about their risks. Staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities in relation to raising concerns or suspicions of abuse to help protect people using the service. Systems were not always effective however for monitoring and reflecting the support people received in line with their needs and risks.
Many people told us that they were satisfied with the timings of their calls. People’s calls were monitored to ensure that their care needs could be met by staff. Systems were being further developed to ensure that people did not experience late and missed calls. Systems were not effective however to ensure that people received calls from consistent care staff.
A small number of people received support to help them take their medicines. We found that medicines management processes had improved at the service through monitoring processes and improving guidance for staff. Further improvement was required to bring the registered provider’s medicines policies in line with current good practice guidelines.
People were satisfied with the support they received from staff. Although staff had not received up-to-date core training in their roles, they told us that they felt able to request the support they needed and they felt equipped for their roles. Staff received support supervision, spot checks and staff meetings.
People were pleased with the support they received to prepare and have meals and staff sought guidance in people’s care plans to ensure they supported people safely. Whilst this was positive, records failed to reflect the appropriate support that people received. People were supported to seek further healthcare support to promote their health and wellbeing.
People were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Staff described the positive rapport they developed with people using the service and how they promoted people’s independence in practice. People were involved in their care planning and their views respected, although people’s ongoing expressed preferences for consistent staff had not been addressed by the registered provider.
People received support that met their needs and this was monitored over the time they used the service. There was a complaints process in place which was followed appropriately although people we spoke with told us that they had no concerns about the service.
People and staff gave positive feedback about the service. People’s feedback was used to plan their care and improve their experience of using the service. Staff showed that they were engaged in their roles. The registered provider failed to ensure that systems were robust and that staff received up-to-date guidance to ensure the safety and quality of the service was maintained.