You are here

Archived: Care at Home (Wearside) Limited - 13 Grange Terrace

Reports


Inspection carried out on 23 December 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

One inspector carried out this follow-up inspection. At the time of our inspection the agency provided support to 232 people.

We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made in respect of shortfalls in supporting workers and assessing and monitoring the quality of the service identified on our previous visits on 23 May, 4 and 5 June 2014.

During our inspection on 23 December 2014, we spent time speaking with managers, the provider and reviewing records and quality documentation. We found that a system to manage staff appraisals had been implemented and that all staff had received at least one appraisal. A system to record, investigate and track incidents and accidents had also been implemented.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Inspection carried out on 23 May and 4, 5 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found.

The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

We saw checks had been completed by the manager around the persons own home environment. This meant that the provider where possible ensured the home was safe for both the people who used the service and the staff. The provider had developed systems to ensure potential risks were assessed and managed. Where staff had identified a potential risk, either during the initial assessment or after admission, a risk assessment had been completed to ensure people remained safe.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with the manager of the service about a person's journey from the point of referral to support being provided. They told us that an information pack about the service was sent to the person. If the person and/or their family or representative wished to proceed with the service, the manager and senior carer then visited in order to discuss the support required.

We saw before people started to use the service an assessment of needs was completed. This included an assessment of the support people required for activities and tasks such as waking and dressing, personal hygiene, communication needs and mobility.

Information gathered during the initial assessment was used to develop detailed care plans. Care plans clearly identified the goal or expected outcome of the care plan and identified the interaction and support required to achieve the goal.

We spoke with three people who used the service. One person said, “They help me out every day. I could not manage without them." Family members we spoke with stated they were happy with how staff communicated with their relative. One relative commented, “The care staff have a good relationship with my mother they really help out.”

Is the service caring?

People said they received good care. One person said, “The staff are excellent."Nothing I ask of them is too much trouble.” Another person said, "The care staff treat me well."

Family members told us that staff treated their relative not only with dignity and respect but also with affection. Family members confirmed that they had seen and read their relative’s care plans. "The staff are good"; "The staff seem very caring".

We looked at the care records of people who used the service. We saw people’s needs had been individually assessed, and where necessary plans of care drawn up. We saw detailed information had been supplied by other agencies, such as social services. For example, we saw in one person's care plan a request by the service to increase the amount of the time spent by care staff at each visit as more support was identified. We saw this had been agreed by the local authority. This additional information was used to complement the care plans and to guide staff about how to meet people’s needs. We saw formal reviews of people's care plans were held. We saw people and their relatives or representatives had been involved. This meant the risk of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care was reduced.

Is the service responsive?

During the inspection we spoke with the care co-ordinators who told us that people got a rota each week to inform them of the times staff would be calling and who would be providing their care. Care plans were evaluated each month to ensure they remained current. The record of the review included a summary about each person’s current situation. Formal reviews of care and support took place, and the person was able to decide who they wished to invite to attend. This included a relative, a social worker and an advocate. Relatives we spoke with told us, "I have come along to a review" and "I get invited to a review but they also let me know what is going on a regular basis."

Is the service well-led?

We found that the provider did not have a robust system of quality audits in place. We found no evidence that regular care plan audits together with medication audits took place.

We looked at staff records and saw staff had received regular supervisions; however staff had not received an annual appraisal within the last year.

We saw senior staff had observed staff providing care in people’s homes so they could assess how they carried out their work and check they were following company policies.

Inspection carried out on 19 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During the course of our visit, we visited four people at their homes who use the service and spoke to three members of staff.

We visited the agency's office to look at records and talk to staff about how they provided safe and appropriate care to people.

People we spoke to were happy with the service they received from Care at Home (Wearside) Limited - 13 Grange Terrace. They said they had regular carers who they were happy with.

The people we spoke with all said they had been involved in planning their care and told us that they could contact the main office if they had any queries.

Staff were trained and given regular supervision and appraisal of their work.

Systems were in place to regularly ask the views of people who used its services, and evidence that the provider listened to, and acted upon, such feedback.

We were told that people felt safe with the care workers who supported them and the care workers had all received training in the safeguarding of adults. One person told us, "… come in and I am very happy with her."

Inspection carried out on 17 September 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

People we spoke with told us the agency supported them to be involved in their own care and the staff listened to their views on how they preferred to be supported. When asked, the people who used the service told us the staff treated them with respect and dignity.

People told us that they felt safe and the staff supported them well and had no concerns about the way the staff treated them. People who used the service expressed their satisfaction with the care that they received. One person told us, “I am very happy with the care I get. I am a hard task master and if it is not right they will know about it”. Another person told us, “The girls always arrive on time and they are compatible with me”. Two people told us about recent visits by “The senior” to review their care and asked about how “the girls” were performing, but before then they had not received any visit from the senior staff. One person told us, “Two supervisors came to see me years ago but no one has been since”.

We looked at the records that related to staff who had received training on risk assessment. We found that some of these records had not been appropriately signed and dated by the trainer. Also the records did not provide details of staff’s competency levels in risk assessment before undertaking these duties. We also found a number of examples which showed that until a few months ago, care plans had not been reviewed for a number of years.

Inspection carried out on 18 January 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

We did not speak with the people who used the service about this outcome area. This visit was a follow-up visit to a previous inspection in January 2011 to see how the provider was meeting this outcome. This was in relation to staff training, supervision and a quality assurance system for monitoring and assessing the service. At the January 2011 inspection the provider was not meeting this outcome.

Inspection carried out on 27 January 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use the service were asked how they feel about it and the staff who look after them. Their comments include “ they tailor care around my needs", "they involve me and know what my needs are", and "they really look after me".

A relative was positive about the service and said the staff were "good" and "kind".