Agincare UK Christchurch

Updated 20 February 2019

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 took place on 15, 16 and 17 January 2019 and was announced. 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 an assistant inspector on day one who visited people in their own homes. One inspector visited the office location on days two and three and then made follow up telephone calls to professionals and staff. Two experts by experience made telephone calls to people who received a service on 16 and 17 January. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. They had experience in older peoples care and dementia care.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the service had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the service.

We had received a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed this information prior to the inspection.

During the inspection we visited four people in their own homes and spoke with 24 people and three relatives on the telephone. We gathered feedback from three professionals. We also spoke with four members of staff, the acting manager and the quality lead.

We looked at a range of records during the inspection, these included seven care records. We also looked at information relating to the management of the service including quality assurance audits, accident and incident forms, policies, risk assessments, meeting minutes and complaints. We looked at four staff files, the recruitment process, training and supervision records.

Updated 20 February 2019

The inspection took place on 15,16 and 17 January 2019 and was announced.

The service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 125 people.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. It provides a service to older adults and people with dementia. Not everyone using Agincare Christchurch receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Agincare Christchurch office is situated on the outskirts of Christchurch. It provides support to people living in the Bournemouth and Christchurch areas.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of inspection. However the acting manager was in the process of applying to CQC to become the registered manager. 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good:

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff understood how to report any potential concerns. People were supported by familiar, consistent staff where possible and staff knew people well and understood the risks they faced and how to manage these. Accidents and incidents were reported, recorded and learning shared with staff. People received their medication safely and this was recorded accurately to reduce likelihood of errors.

People were involved in pre-admission assessments which identified their physical, religious, emotional and mental health needs to ensure that these could be effectively met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Staff received regular support through supervision and had access to relevant training opportunities to provide them with the correct skills and knowledge for their role.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Staff were able to communicate with people in ways which were meaningful for them. Some staff did not speak English as a first language. The acting manager told us that they would speak with their manager about sourcing English courses or training for staff struggling with communication to ensure that this did not impact on people. People were offered choices about their care and treatment. They were supported with respect by staff who protected people’s dignity and promoted their independence.

People’s care records showed their support was reviewed regularly and was responsive to changing needs. People and relatives were aware about how to raise concerns if needed and felt that these would be listened and responded to. Any advance medical decisions were recorded and discussions around people’s end of life preferences and wishes were recorded.

Feedback from people, relatives and staff was sought through surveys and monitoring phone calls. Quality assurance measures were used to identify any gaps or trends to continually improve the service people received. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported in their roles.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.