You are here

K2 Care Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 July 2019

K2 Care Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to adults and children living in their own homes in the Peterborough and surrounding areas. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of this inspection, 41 people received the regulated activity, personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service provided. However, these were not sufficiently robust and had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection in relation to medicine records, and investigations. People received support to receive their medicines as prescribed. However, records did not always give staff clear guidance on what medicines they should administer, or what medicines people had taken. Senior staff did not always carry out robust investigations or take prompt action to reduce the risk of incidents recurring. However, the provider had recognised they needed to improve their governance systems and were receptive to feedback and responded quickly to address the shortfalls we found.

Staff knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination.

The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. The registered manager reviewed staffing levels and people needs regularly. People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.

Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink. They worked with external professionals, following their guidance, to support people to keep well.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff were respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. They supported people to develop their independence. Support was person-centred and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews. The registered manager sought feedback from people about the quality of the service provided.

People’s care plans provided staff with guidance on how to meet each person’s needs. The service did not provide specialist end of life care but would continue to care for people at the end of their life with support from external health professionals. The registered manager told us they were looking to further develop end of life and future wishes care plans to ensure people’s wishes were known to staff. Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure that people received care that met their needs.

Systems were in place to deal with any concerns or complaints. The registered manager told us they tried to address any concerns at an early stage, thereby resolving issues before they became complaints.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (the last report was published 12 November 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to v

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 July 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 July 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 July 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 July 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 July 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.