Archived: KarVonEttes

Updated 25 July 2018

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 7 June 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service to people in their own home and we needed to ensure, if possible, the registered manager would be present. The inspection team consisted of one 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 service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report. The PIR 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 checked the information that we held about the service and the service provider. We looked at notifications sent to us by the provider. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We spoke with six people who used the service, three relatives, three care workers, a care services coordinator, a director (and nominated individual) and the registered manager. We also looked at documentation, which included three people’s care plans, incorporating comprehensive risk assessments, as well as three staff training files and records relating to the management of the service.

We asked the provider to send us a copy of the initial needs and risk assessment template and a copy of the most recent health and safety audit. We received both documents within four days of our inspection visit.

Updated 25 July 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults. Not everyone using KarVonEttes receives 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.

KarVonEttes provides personal care and support to people in Mansfield, Ashfield and the surrounding areas of North Nottinghamshire. On the day of our inspection, 57 people were using the service.

We carried out this inspection on 7 June 2018. It was an announced inspection, which meant the provider knew we would be visiting. This was because we wanted to make sure that the registered manager, or someone who could act on their behalf, would be available to talk with us.

At our last inspection on 24 November 2016, there was no registered manager in post, medicines were not always managed safely and the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’.

At this inspection, we saw improvements had been made regarding the safe management of medicines and there was a registered manager in post. 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.

There was a strong ethos of delivering person centred care and this was a culture which was embedded with the staff team. There were systems in place for staff which enabled them to feel supported, valued and motivated.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the management of the service and felt that the registered manager was professional, readily accessible, approachable and helpful.

Oversight of the service and staff, both formal and informal, enabled the management team to regularly monitor the service provided and ensure all care and support was consistent, responsive and reflected people's ongoing and changing needs.

People, relatives and professionals told us that staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported. They had undergone a comprehensive induction programme and, where necessary, had received additional training specific to the needs of the people they were supporting. Communication was effective and regular meetings were held to discuss issues and share best practice. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and spoke enthusiastically about the work they did and the people they cared for and supported.

The provider had detailed policies and procedures relating to medicines management. Staff understanding and competency regarding the management of medicines was subject to regular monitoring checks and medicines training was updated appropriately. Staff understood what support people needed to manage their medicines safely and these were given as prescribed. There were processes in place to audit the accuracy of recording medicines.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service and used effective systems for gaining consent. Individual care plans, based on a full assessment of need, were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. This helped ensure that personal care was provided in a structured and consistent manner. Risk assessments were also in place to effectively identify and manage potential risks.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests. Staff we spoke with were able to explain how they considered capacity and consent when they supported people.

People received support, where appropriate, to eat and drink sufficiently. People were also supported to access a range of healthcare professionals, as and when required.

Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. They encouraged, enabled and supported people to be as independent as possible and there was a strong focus on working with people, as opposed to working for them. People’s individual communication needs were assessed and they were supported to communicate effectively.

Systems were in place to effectively monitor the safety and quality of the service and to gather the views and experiences of people and their relatives. The service was flexible and responded positively to people’s changing needs and any issues or concerns raised. People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint, if necessary, and were confident that any concerns they might raise would be listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.