You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 September 2014
Date of Publication: 21 October 2014
Inspection Report published 21 October 2014 PDF | 94.72 KB


Inspection carried out on 10 September 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection we were told Everycare Midsussex was providing personal care to 60 people and employed 23 staff. We reviewed the records of seven people who used the service in depth and sampled the records of a further 26 people. We attempted to speak with 11 staff and gained feedback from six. We also spoke with the registered provider. We used an expert by experience to help us gain feedback from people who used the service. We spoke with 19 people and three relatives to establish their views of the service they received.

The inspection team was made up of a single inspector and an expert by experience. We set out to answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is it safe?

Without exception everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe when receiving support from the agency. The provider had systems in place to support staff how to prevent, identify and report abuse. All staff knew these systems and had received training. Staff were clear they would report concerns to the manager and these would be actioned. There was a system in place for recording of incidents and accidents and staff could describe to us how this information was used to improve the service for people.

The provider ensured all appropriate recruitment checks were undertaken before staff could start working with people.

Prior to using the service the provider carried out an assessment of people’s needs. This was undertaken with the person and/or their representative. Care plans had been developed for people based on an assessment of needs, however these did not always reflect the person’s current needs. Where there were identified risks associated with people's care and treatment these actions to reduce these risks or manage them if they arose had not been identified or planned for. This meant people received care which was not planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Records held for people at the time of our visit did not always reflect their current needs. Some records could not be found at the time of our inspection visit and therefore staff could not locate these promptly. Records were not always stored securely. This meant that people may be at risk of receiving care and support that was unsafe or inappropriate to their needs.

We have asked the provider to tell us what action they will be taking to ensure they meet the requirements set by law in relation to care planning, care delivery and records.

Is it caring?

All people we spoke with expressed their satisfaction with the care they received from staff. People told us they were treated kindly and with dignity and respect by staff.

Is it responsive?

Care reviews were undertaken and where concerns were raised these were recorded. However we could not see what actions had been taken to resolve the concerns for people. People gave us mixed views about the office. One person we spoke with said when they had a problem, they had raised this and it was "soon sorted". Whereas another person told us of their concerns and said “I have been in touch with the office but they haven’t returned my call”. Staff told us they were confident issues of concern would be acted upon.

Is it effective?

The provider ensured all staff received an effective induction prior to working with people. This included a period of shadowing experienced staff as well as appropriate training.

Is it well led?

The agency had some systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service. This included staff spot checks, supervisions and staff meetings. Five people we spoke with told us the provider often visited people to keep their skills up to date but also to ensure people were happy with their care.

We could not be assured that learning from incidents and accidents took place to make improvements to the service. Incident records reflected the immediate action taken by the care staff, however there was no evidence of an analysis, learning or appropriate actions having been implemented to reduce the risk of recurrence.

The provider did not have an emergency contingency plan. They told us they had thought about this but did not have one in place. This meant arrangements were not in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

We have asked the provider to tell us what action they will be taking to ensure they meet the requirements set by law in relation to assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided.