You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 19 April 2018

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults.

Not everyone using CASA Leeds receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

We inspected CASA Leeds on 29 November and 7 December. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because the service provides care in people’s own homes and we wanted to make sure staff would be in the office and that the manager was available.

At the last inspection in November 2015 the service was rated overall as ‘Good’.

There was no registered manager in place for the service. The service had a manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

There were not enough staff to meet people’s needs, and people told us that staff were frequently late or missed their visits. We received mixed feedback from people on the competency and suitability of staff who cared for them

Records relating to the safe management of medicines were not completed well, however we did not see any evidence that the management of medicines in other areas was unsafe.

We found two breaches of regulations in relation to staffing and good governance. This was because there were not enough suitably qualified and competent staff deployed to meet people’s needs, and because the systems and processes in place did not effectively monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

You can see the action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People we spoke with told us their complaints were not always responded to appropriately and they felt they were not listened to. We have made a recommendation about the management of complaints made about the service because people told us they felt they weren’t listened to when they rang the office with concerns.

Staff were recruited safely, with appropriate background checks carried out.

Risks to people were assessed appropriately, and staff knew how to spot signs of abuse and act appropriately in line with the provider’s safeguarding procedures.

Staff were provided with an induction and training programme that they felt met their needs. Staff felt well supported through supervisions, appraisals and spot checks.

People were supported to eat and drink enough, and people told us they were well supported with their health needs.

People told us care workers were kind and compassionate and that their dignity and privacy was protected. Staff were able to describe how they maintained people’s dignity and privacy when carrying out personal care. Staff described how they supported people to maintain their independence.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way with good detailed guidelines for staff on caring for people the way they wanted to be cared for.

There was a new leadership team in place. Staff told us this had improved morale.

The provider had for a long time been unable to monitor the quality of the service due to a failure of their computer systems and efforts to rectify this had been unsuccessful and resulted in missed visits.

The provider sought people’s feedback on the quality of the care it provided through surveys and quality monitoring calls.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was not always safe.

There were not enough staff to meet people’s care needs. We identified concerns about missed visits. People told us staff were frequently late and did not always stay for the full length of their visit.

Medicines records were poor, and this was not picked up and acted upon through audits.

People told us they felt safe in the presence of staff. Staff were able to describe how they would protect people from harm and potential abuse through the provider’s safeguarding procedures.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was not always effective.

We received mixed feedback from people on the competency and suitability of staff who cared for them.

Staff were supported with inductions, training and on-going monitoring and supervision.

People were supported to access healthcare service and staff were knowledgeable and proactive in spotting signs of deterioration in people’s health.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was caring.

People were generally positive about the attitude of staff and told us they were caring and compassionate in their work.

People told us staff helped them to maintain their dignity and privacy. People told us they were supported to maintain their independence and staff were proactive in promoting this.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was not always responsive.

There was a complaints process, but people felt staff did not take their informal complaints made over the telephone seriously or that appropriate action would be taken.

Care records were written in a person-centred way with detailed guidance for staff on how to care for people the way they wanted.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 19 April 2018

The service was not always well led.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection and there was a new leadership team in place. The service had appointed a manager who was in process of registering with the CQC.

Quality monitoring systems were not effective in identifying issues with compliance. People told us they were not confident in the organisation of the service.

The provider gathered feedback from people who used the service, and the service also gathered feedback from staff at team meetings.