Archived: Care People Limited Sparkhill - Birmingham

We undertook a further inspection in October 2013. This was to check whether compliance had been achieved. We found that the provider continued to be non-compliant with regulations.

The purpose of this inspection undertaken in November 2013 was to check whether the provider had completed specific actions that were needed in order to improve the service. The findings of our inspection showed that whilst some of these actions had been completed, compliance with regulations had not been achieved. People were at risk from unsafe and ineffective care. The business was still in administration and the long term viability of the service was, therefore, not assured.

Following our inspection we shared our concerns with local authority staff involved in the care of the people who used the service. Arrangements put into place by the local authority were extended so that no additional care packages would be given to the provider until improvements had been made.

We returned to the provider on 1 August 2013 to check whether improvements had been made. We found that improvements had not been made and served warning notices in relation to the regulations breached. We gave the provider until 19 September 2013 to improve.

The provider did not send us an action plan following their August 2013 inspection. This meant that they did not provide us with information about how compliance would be achieved. However, an action plan was sent to us during the October inspection.

We returned to the provider on 10 and 16 October 2013 to check whether improvements had been made. We found that whilst some progress had been made, compliance had not been achieved in the regulations in relation to care delivery, staff availability, quality monitoring and risk management.

During the October inspection, we spoke with nine people who received personal care or their family members. We spoke with care and office staff supporting them. Most people told us that they were happy with the individual staff members who worked for the provider. A person who was using the service told us 'I am very happy with my carers, they understand my needs.'

However, some people told us that they continued to receive a poor service. In particular, this was on occasions where people's regular carers were not working. A relative of a person using the service told us 'The first carer arrived at the correct time and the second carer arrived towards the end. This meant that we didn't get the full half hour call.'

The findings of our inspection showed that whilst some progress had been made, systems in place for quality monitoring and risk management had failed to identify that people's care and support needs were not always being met in a safe and timely manner.

We found that a number of care staff and office staff had left the providers employment since our August inspection. Staff told us that this was because up until recently, their wages had not been paid in a timely manner. However, staff told us that this situation was improving and that they had now been paid for most, but not all, of the work they had undertaken.

Over recent months local authority staff involved in the care of people who used the service had monitored the safety and quality of service provided. In response to concerns about people's safety and welfare, the care of at least fifty people had been transferred to alternative care providers. Arrangements were in place so that no additional care packages would be given to the provider until the local authority was assured that improvements had been made and sustained.

It was of concern that the provider had not paid their annual CQC registration fee. This meant that the provider's service was not meeting its aims and objectives and that there was a risk that people may not receive the service they need.

We spoke with seven people who received personal care from the agency or their family members. They told us that, overall they were happy with the service they received. They told us that staff completed the care and support required. A person using the service told us 'I have no concerns. Staff arrive when they should and stay for the correct amount of time.'

We asked local authority staff involved in monitoring the service, about the quality of care provided. They told us that they had also received concerns that there was a risk that people's care and support needs were not being met in a timely manner. They told us that they were following up the concerns raised.

We shared our concerns with local authority staff involved in the care of the people who used the service. Arrangements were put into place by the local authority so that no additional care packages would be given to the provider until improvements had been made. The provider wrote to us and told us how these improvements would be achieved. A meeting with the provider provided further assurances about this and the CQC annual fee was paid.

We have received further information recently that alleged staff had left their employment as they had not been paid for the work that they had undertaken. Concerns were raised that this had meant that people using the service were not receiving care and support in a safe and timely manner.

We returned to the provider on 1 August 2013 to look into the concerns and check on the progress the provider had made against the information they had sent to us. The findings of our inspection identified continued non-compliance with the areas of concern. This also reflected the findings of local authority staff involved in monitoring the quality of the service provided. They told us that they were taking action in response to the continued concerns.

During the August inspection, we spoke with four people who received personal care or their family members. We spoke with the staff supporting them. Whilst people told us that they were happy with the individual staff members who worked for the provider, all of the people that we spoke with told us that they were receiving a poor service from the provider.

People told us that there had been numerous recent occasions where care and support had not been provided as per their assessed needs. This placed people at risk of harm or injury. A relative of a person using the service told us 'The agency keep on letting us down.'

We found that a high number of care staff and office staff had recently left their employment. Staff told us that this was because they had not been paid for all of the work that they had undertaken. Some staff had also left for other reasons. This meant that there were not enough staff available to plan and undertake the care calls of all of the people using the service.

People told us that alternative staff cover was not always found should their regular carer not be available. A staff member told us 'The clients are suffering as they are not getting proper care. We are expected to cover extra calls.'

Most people told us that they were supported by the same staff. This promotes continuity of care. A relative told us 'There has been no change with our carers for the past four months.'

Timings of calls were flexible to meet the needs of the people using the service. A relative told us 'We recently asked the carer to come a bit earlier as mum had a doctor's visit that morning. This was done no problem.'

People using the service and their relatives had opportunities to express their views about the service they received from the agency. People we spoke with were confident that they could raise concerns if they were not happy with the care being received. People told us that actions had been taken in response to any concerns that they had raised. They told us 'When I had a concern, I rang the office direct. They dealt with my concern professionally' and 'In the past we have pointed out little things and the agency have sorted them out.'

During our inspection, we asked local authority staff involved in monitoring the agency about the quality of the service the agency provided. They did not have any information to share with us about the quality aspects of the service.