You are here

Kalcrest Care (Northern) Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 August 2018

We inspected the service between 6 July and 27 July 2018 and the inspection was announced.

Kalcrest Care (Northern) Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to mainly older adults. At the time of the inspection, care and support was being delivered to 94 people

At the last inspection in May 2017 we rated the service requires improvement and found three breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment, person-centred care and good governance. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; is the service safe well led to at least good. At this inspection we found further improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of any regulations.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

Overall people provided positive feedback about the service and said it had continued to improve. People said they felt safe and secure in the company of staff. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and clear and detailed risk assessments put in place for staff to follow.

We found there were enough staff deployed to ensure people received a reliable service although people and staff said there were some issues with continuity of staff on one of the rounds. Staff were recruited safely to help ensure they were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people. Staff received a range of training and support to enable them to do their role effectively. Overall, staff said they felt well supported by the management team.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity to make decisions, best interest decisions were made. People were involved in care planning to the maximum extent possible.

People’s care needs were assessed and clear and detailed plans of care put in place for staff to follow. These covered meeting people’s nutritional needs. The service worked with external health professionals to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met. People said care needs were met by the service.

Whilst most people were happy with the times that staff visited, we found some improvements were needed to ensure other people received care at a consistent time each day. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

People said staff were kind and caring and treated them well. Most people received consistent care workers which helped the development of positive relationships. People’s independence was promoted by the service.

Where people raised complaints these were logged, investigated and responded to within a timely manner. People’s feedback on the quality of the service was regularly sought and any negative comments or issues acted on.

People and relatives spoke positively about the overall quality of the service. Staff said they enjoyed working for the service and felt well supported.

Systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. Audits and checks were used to make positive improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was safe.

People said they felt safe using the service. Risks to people�s health and safety were assessed and plans of care put in place to keep people safe. When things went wrong there was a culture of learning from incidents.

Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed. Clear records were kept of the medicine support provided.

Overall there were enough staff deployed to ensure people received a reliable service. Staff were recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received a range of training, support and supervision to help ensure they consistently worked in a competent manner. Overall people praised the quality of care workers.

People�s nutritional needs were assessed and staff supported people to eat and drink sufficient quantities.

The service worked with a range of healthcare professionals to help ensure people received the care that they needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was caring.

People said staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Most people said they received consistent care workers.

People�s independence was promoted by the service.

People�s views were listened to and acted on.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

Some improvements were needed to ensure people received care at a consistent time each day.

People�s care needs were assessed and clear and detailed plans of care put in place for staff to follow. Care plans were subject to regular review.

People�s complaints were logged, investigated and responded to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was well led.

People spoke positively about the overall quality of the service and said the management team were approachable. We saw people�s comments and feedback had been acted on.

The service was effective at driving improvement. A number of audits and checks were undertaken and used to further improve the quality of the service.