You are here

Archived: Yorkshire Rose Home Care - 6 Carr Furlong

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 26 September 2012
Date of Publication: 30 October 2012
Inspection Report published 30 October 2012 PDF | 64.95 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 26/09/2012, looked at records of people who use services, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

The provider was not meeting this standard. We judged this had a minor impact on people using services and action was needed for this essential standard.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others

User experience

We spoke to people using the service but their feedback did not relate to this standard.

Other evidence

We spoke to the provider/manager about quality assurance systems in place at the agency. She stated they did not have a formal system in place for seeking people and staff’s views about the care provided, because they sought people’s views about care when they provided care to people and acted on that information immediately, by changing the care provided. They saw the staff member on a daily basis to exchange that information.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service. This was because they did not have up to date assessments, care plans and risk assessments for people, there was inappropriate recording of administered medication and a lack of appropriate staff training.

The agency had a written complaints procedure. A copy was provided to people in the information packs about the agency, which were given to them when they started using the service. The manager said that no complaints about the agency had been received.