Archived: JDK Limited (Glenholme Care)

The inspection took place on 7, 8, 9 and 14 July 2015 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service has not previously been inspected as it is a relatively new service.

There was a Registered Manager in post at the time of this 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 the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

JDK (Glenholme Care) is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes.

At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care for 13 people. The service covers the parts of the Wakefield area local to their offices at Nostell. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting people with a variety of care needs including older people and people living with dementia. Care and support was co-ordinated from the services office, this was manned by the registered manager and one of the directors, there was a care coordinator however they were not present during the days of our inspection.

We found there were breaches of Regulations 5 (2) [d] and (3) [a] Fit and proper persons directors, Regulation 9 (3) [b] Person centred care, Regulation 11 Need for consent, Regulation 12 (1), (2) [a] [g] safe care and treatment, Regulation 17 (1) and (2) [a,b,c,d,e,f,g] Good governance, Regulation 18 (1), (2) [a] staffing, Regulation 19 (2) (3) [a] fit and proper persons employed all of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We found evidence of some good care plans, however these were not in place in the majority of cases, there had been some work done to improve the format and content of the care planning and risk assessment paperwork, this had not been implemented in any of the people’s homes at the time of our inspection.

We found that whilst there was evidence of some of the staff being caring, we also found evidence of relationships between staff and service users and their families, which breached professional boundaries and put both staff and service users at risk of potential allegations of wrongdoing.

We were unable to speak to staff, as the provider did not provide us with the information we needed to contact them. This meant we were unable to gain any insight into the practices which were being employed, the morale and competence of staff or their suitability for the role they were undertaking.

We found evidence of unsafe practice in the administration of medicines

We found evidence of missed calls and calls being merged to enable carers to fit all their calls into rounds, we also found evidence that calls were being delivered hours early or late at times

The provider was not able to provide any evidence that consent for care had been gained from any of the people who were using the service, they were not able to provide us with any mental capacity assessments, or best interest process decisions for those people they told us lacked capacity.

We found that there were no processes in place to manage or store personal information which was held about the people using the service.

Personal information was not managed safely or securely.

We saw that in staff recruitment files that there was no proper checks undertaken to ensure that safe recruitment procedures were followed and there was no evidence to show that staff were supported.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.