You are here

Archived: HQL Domiciliary Care & Outreach Support

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 20 May 2013
Date of Publication: 16 July 2013
Inspection Report published 16 July 2013 PDF

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 looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 20 May 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

The provider did not have robust system to assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and improvements were needed.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service told us they were happy and satisfied with the care that they received. One person said they were very happy with the support provided to their relative . Staff said they were supported and had regular one to one supervision. However, documentation did not support this. The provider may find it useful to note that staff files contained limited evidence of staff supervision.

The agency did not have any evidence of surveys carried out to determine evidential feedback of the agencies performance to feed into any quality assurance monitoring system. However, the agency manager was in regular contact with the people that the agency provided a service to and was fully appraised of their needs and dealt with any issues or concerns promptly.

The manager stated that a senior manager inspected the service last August 2012. However, no other checks of the service were found and issues raised did not form part of an action planned that had been actioned. This meant that people were at risk of receiving a service which had not had systems in place to ensure effective quality monitoring.

Whilst people benefited from safe quality care, treatment and support, the service lacked evidence of systems to monitor the quality of care. Monitoring of the service was informal and was in need of review. The manager acknowledged that processes and audits were needed to better evidence that the quality of care was being monitored.