Archived: Carewatch (North Somerset)

Updated 19 March 2016

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 4 and 5 February 2016 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we wanted to make sure staff and people using the service were available to speak with us.

The inspection visit was conducted by two adult social care inspectors. During the inspection we contacted people who used the service by telephone to ask them about their experiences.

Before the inspection we looked at all the information we had on the provider, including notifications of significant events and safeguarding alerts. We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to our inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. The provider therefore provided us with a range of documents, such as copies of internal audits, action plans and quality audits, which gave us key information about the service and any planned improvements.

We contacted the local authority and NHS commissioning teams who purchased services from the agency and had feedback from two of these. We spoke with 18 people who used the service and six of their relatives by telephone.

During the inspection visit we spoke with the provider, manager and five staff working at the agency. We looked at the care records for eight people who used the service. We also looked at staff recruitment, training and supervision records, records of complaints, missed visits and other incidents and the provider's records of audits and quality monitoring. We contacted the local authority and NHS commissioning teams who purchased services from the agency and had feedback from two of these. We spoke with 18 people who used the service and six of their relatives by telephone.

Updated 19 March 2016

Carewatch (North Somerset) Domestic Care Agency (DCA) is registered to support people who require support with personal care. The service was set up to provide services to people living in their own homes.

At the time of the inspection 88 people were receiving a service. The inspection took place on 4 and 5 February 2016 and we gave the provider forty eight hours’ notice in order to make sure the people we needed to speak with were available. The last inspection of this service was completed on 13 November 2012 and no concerns were identified.

The registered manager had left the service shortly before the 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. The new manager was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission.

Completed satisfaction surveys we received from people who used the service indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service provided. They agreed with the majority of the positive statements on the survey such as ‘My care workers have the skills and knowledge to give me the care and support I need’. And ‘The support I receive helps me to be as independent as I

can be’. However some people commented on the lack of a regular carer. The manager explained that they tried to provide the same carer for people but with staff holidays and staff leaving the service this wasn’t always possible.

Management and care workers spoke affectionately about people they provided support to whom they had known for a long time. They described to us a service that was centred as much as possible on the needs, wishes and preferences of people who they knew well. It was evident the care provided was responsive to the changing needs and wishes of people and care

workers respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity. A care worker described in detail the care that a particular person needed and also told us the person liked to be independent and do things for themselves which they supported them to do.

Care plans described people’s needs and preferences and care workers were aware of the people’s personal history and the people that mattered to them. People and their relatives, if necessary, were consulted about decisions about the persons care and were involved in reviews of their care plan.

There were systems in place to ensure people received safe care and there were sufficient care workers employed to support them. When care workers were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure they were safe to work within the care sector. Care workers were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding

and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Care workers were skilled and knowledgeable. They had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of people who use the service, such as caring for people living with dementia or diabetes. Care workers were supported in their role and received one to supervision meetings with their line manager and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place. The manager and care workers

had received training and worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. There were systems and procedures in place for the safe management and administration of medicines. The service had an infection control policy and staff were aware of good hygiene practices.

The service was responsive to the needs of people. Concerns or complaints were promptly responded to. There were comprehensive arrangements for quality assurance. Regular audits and checks had been carried out by senior staff and the director. We saw a record of compliments received and these indicated that people were satisfied with the quality of care provided.

The company undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.