You are here

Universal Care - Beaconsfield Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Universal Care - Beaconsfield. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 February 2014
Date of Publication: 25 March 2014
Inspection Report published 25 March 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 24 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We received feedback from 21 people who used the service or their relatives. People described a high level of satisfaction with the standard of care provided. They told us care workers arrived at the time they expected them and stayed the required length of time. People reported good continuity of care, with the same team of care workers supporting them. They said they would communicate directly with the office if they had any concerns. Those people who had done so said any concerns had been addressed satisfactorily. Comments included �What they do for me is very satisfactory,� �No problems at all,� �Excellent,� and �My carers look after me very well.�

We found people�s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans were in place for each person who used the service. We looked at a sample of seven people�s care plans. These showed people�s needs had been assessed and the support they required was identified. Risk assessments had been completed in each file we read and ensured care was delivered in a safe manner.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place at the service. We looked at four staff recruitment files. Each file contained the necessary checks and clearances. This ensured staff had the right skills and experience and were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff had not consistently received the support they required. Records showed staff completed a structured induction which gave them a good foundation into the work they undertook. The core training needs for staff had not been identified subsequent to their induction. This meant staff did not have the opportunity to update and refresh their skills, to take account of changes to good practice.

We found variations to the pattern and frequency of staff supervision and appraisals. This meant staff had not received routine evaluation of their performance and development needs, to ensure they supported people appropriately.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. A satisfaction survey was conducted in 2013 by an external organisation. The findings of the survey were positive and showed the service had provided a high level of care most of the time, in people�s experiences.