Archived: Age UK Rotherham

Age Uk Rotherham is a care agency and a not for profit organisation. The service is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. Although it also provided cleaning, gardening and befriending services which are not regulated by CQC. The calls to people who use the service are always a minimum of an hour. At the time of our inspection the service was predominantly supporting older people and people living with dementia. Care and support was co-ordinated from the office, which was based in Rotherham. The registered manager told us they enabled people to continue to be able to live independently in their own homes. They called the care staff enablers.

There was a registered manager at the time of 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.

We found that people’s needs had been assessed before their care package commenced. People who used the service and their relatives that we spoke with told us they had been involved in creating and updating their care plans. The information included in the care records we saw identified people’s individual needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

People who used the service who we spoke with told us the care staff were very good, staff were kind caring and always stayed the required time ensuring care needs were met.

We found that staff we spoke with had an understanding of the legal requirements as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out how to act to support people who do not have the capacity to make some or all decisions about their care.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place. The provider was recruiting staff at the time of our inspection.

Staff had received formal supervision and annual appraisals were due at the time of our inspection. These ensured development and training to support staff to fulfil their roles and responsibilities was identified.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the care coordinator and management they told us that they were listened to. Staff also told us communication was good and they were always made aware of any changes.

People who used the service told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said they would contact the office if they had any problems. People said, the office staff are always available and deal with any issues immediately.

People who used the service had opportunity to give feedback by completing questionnaires which relatives told us they had recently received and were in the process of completing the questionnaire. The registered manager told us the feedback was used to improve the service provision.

The provider had a system to monitor the quality of the service provided. This was effective and identified areas for further improvement.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were given guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely, and detailed risk assessments and records were in place to ensure people received the care and support they required.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

Care plans contained assessments of people's care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met. Evidence we checked showed that staff were following people's care plans and risk assessments.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with praised the service. They told us they felt they benefitted from their care. One person said: 'She [the care worker] knows how to look after me; she's a real boost to me.'

Is the service responsive?

The provider had created a comprehensive action plan in response to its previous inspection, and adhered to it to ensure that care planning and risk assessing was improved. People's care was regularly reviewed to ensure that changing needs were met.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were given appropriate guidance and training to ensure that safeguarding procedures were understood and followed. People told us that they felt safe when receiving care. However, we found that he provider was not adequately assessing the risks associated with providing care.

Systems were in place for managers to monitor the quality of the service to ensure it operated safely.

Is the service effective?

We found that the provider was not always assessing people's needs in sufficient detail, and care plans were not in place for all care tasks carried out. Audits took place in relation to many aspects of service delivery, but they did not identify shortfalls in care delivery.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with praised the service highly. One said: 'I wish I'd known about this years ago. They [the staff] are absolutely lovely, my carer is like one of the family.' Another said: 'It's exactly what I need, and the staff are all so kind.'

Is the service responsive?

Staff acted in accordance with people's wishes. One person told us: 'She [the care worker] does everything I need, and always checks that everything is right.' However, we found that where people's needs changed, the provider did not always prepare appropriate care plans and risk assessments.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where managers carried out an audit and monitoring programme, and all aspects of service delivery were subject to detailed scrutiny by the board and the senior management team. However, we identified that not all quality issues were identified appropriately.