Archived: Celtic Care

Updated 30 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 15 August 2017. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has experience of the type of service provided by Celtic Care. We told the provider a few days before that we would be coming in accordance with our current methodology for the inspection of domiciliary care agencies.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included past reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. Prior to the inspection we spoke with 15 people who received a sevice from Celtic Care.

During the inspection we went to the provider’s office and spoke with the registered manager and the assistant manager. We looked at six care plans, six staff files, training and supervision records and other records relating to the running of the service. We visited four people in their homes and met one relative.

Following the inspection we spoke with three further staff on the telephone.

Updated 30 August 2017

We carried out this announced inspection on 15 August 2017. The inspection was announced a few days advance in accordance with the Care Quality Commission's current procedures for inspecting domiciliary care services. At the last comprehensive inspection on 21 August 2015 the service was found in breach of the regulations regarding the support and training provided for staff. At our follow up focused inspection on 20 December 2016, the service was found to have taken effective action to meet the requirements of the regulations and the service was rated as ‘Good’. The service was found to remain ‘Good’ at this inspection.

People told us, “I am lucky they (staff) also look after my well being,” “They (staff) are good as gold, always friendly and very very good to me” and “They have a super reputation, no problems at all”.

People were treated with respect by staff. People were asked how they wished their care to be provided. Staff respected people’s wishes. For example, people were asked what they wished staff to prepare for their meal and what clothes they wished to wear.

Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff were confident about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs. However, the service had vacant positions for one full time and one part time carer at the time of this inspection. These vacancies were being covered by existing staff.

People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke well of staff. People told us, “Oh gosh, they are all trained up” and “ I know they all go for training.”

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

The management and staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

People had care plans held both at the office of the service and in their own homes. Care plans contained information to direct staff on how to care for each person according to their needs and wishes. Regular reviews took place to ensure staff were aware of any changes in people’s care needs. Information about any changes was communicated to staff via text message or telephone call. However, some changes were not always recorded in the care plan in a timely manner. The provider assured us that this issue would be addressed immediately.

Staff were recruited safely to help ensure they were suitable to work unsupervised with vulnerable people in their own homes. Staff received regular supervision meetings with senior management. Annual appraisals were also carried out. This provided staff with an opportunity to discuss any training needs or professional development needed.

Staff were happy working for Celtic Care. The registered manager and assistant manager were clearly committed to providing a good service for people often going the extra mile for people who did not have anyone to assist them other than care staff. For example, arranging for repairs to be carried out in their homes and purchasing items on their behalf. People told us, “They always do more for you if you need help” and “They once nipped to the local shop for me and came back in 30 minutes because they were concerned that I might not be able to do it.”

People told us, “The staff are always on time, absolutely brilliant I can’t fault them,” “They’re always in uniform, they fold my clothes, bring down my dirty ones and leave the bathroom exactly as they find it” and “No problems, they are efficient, they fill in all the books and come and collect the time sheets once a month.”

Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff told us, “We get good support,” “They (management) make time for you” and “They (management) are very supportive and very helpful whenever you need it.”

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. The provider and assistant manager visited people in their homes regularly to check on their experiences of the service provided to them. A survey completed by 52 people and their families was overall positive about the care and support provided. People, and their families where appropriate, were provided with information on how to raise any concerns they may have. The service had not had any concerns raised at the time of this inspection. Compliments were received from grateful and happy people and their families thanking the service for their kind care and support. People commented, “Lovely ladies, lovely people”, “ very professional” and “ We sometimes drop them notes of appreciation”.