• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Comfort Call Hartlepool

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Laurel Gardens, Marlowe Road, Hartlepool, Cleveland, TS25 4NZ (01429) 861960

Provided and run by:
Comfort Call Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

23 November 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 23 November 2016, 25 November 2016 and 1 December 2016. This was an announced inspection. We last inspected the service on 30 June 2015, 2 July 2015 and 3 July 2015. We found the provider had breached the regulation relating to medicines management and the service was rated 'requires improvement'.

Comfort Call Hartlepool is a domiciliary care service, which provides support with shopping, domestic tasks and personal care to people living in four extra care schemes in Hartlepool. At the time of this inspection 78 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

We found the provider had breached Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the registered provider did not have effective systems in place to identify and investigate medicines errors in a timely manner. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The quality of medicines records had improved since the last inspection. However, we still found there were some gaps in medicines records.

People told us they were very happy with their care and they were treated with respect by kind and considerate care workers.

Care workers had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. They knew how to identify and report concerns to help keep people safe. Care workers confirmed they had the confidence to raise concerns if they had any. Previous safeguarding concerns had been dealt with correctly.

A range of risk assessments had been carried out and measures identified to minimise the risk of people being harmed.

People received timely support from a consistent and reliable team of care workers. Effective recruitment checks were in place to ensure new care workers were suitable to work with the people using the service.

Plans were in place to deal with emergency situations. Incidents and accidents were investigated and action taken to help keep people safe.

Care workers received good support in order to carry out their caring role. Records confirmed supervision, appraisals and training were up to date.

Care workers had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). People told us care workers asked them for permission before providing support.

Care workers supported people with their nutritional needs. This included preparing meals for people in line with their preferences.

Care workers supported people to attend health care appointments when required.

People gave us examples of how care workers willingly responded to their requests for assistance.

People’s needs had been assessed and personalised care plans had been written. These included clear guidance for care workers about the support people needed at each care visit. People confirmed they had seen their care plans.

The provider had received positive feedback about the service when they last consulted people in May 2016. People said they were satisfied with their care and confirmed they were treated with dignity and respect.

People said they knew how to complain but did not have any concerns about their care. Previous complaints had been fully investigated and action taken to resolve the issues.

People and care workers told us the registered manager and other senior care staff were approachable.

Care workers had opportunities to meet to share their views and suggestions about the care people received.

30 June 2015, 2 July 2015 and 3 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 30 June 2015, 2 July 2015 and 3 July 2015. This was an announced inspection. This was the service’s first inspection since Comfort Call Hartlepool registered with the Care Quality Commission.

Comfort Call Hartlepool is a domiciliary care service, which provides support with shopping, domestic tasks and personal care to people living in four extra care schemes in Hartlepool. At the time of this inspection 101 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

We found the provider had breached Regulations 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because the registered provider did not have accurate records to support and evidence the safe administration of medicines. We found gaps and inaccuracies in medicines records. The registered provider did not have systems in place to identify issues with medicines records in a timely manner. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People told us they felt safe. They went on to tell us they received good care from well trained and skilled staff. One person said, “Yes, I feel very safe. Another person commented, “Yes I feel safe. I have no worries about them [staff]. They are very helpful.” People also told us, “[Staff] know their job really well”, “I love it here, wish I’d moved in years ago”, and, “I think it’s marvellous.” People told us staff were usually reliable and responded quickly. One person said, “They are always there if I need to buzz them. They come as quickly as they can.” People said staff always asked for consent before providing care. One person told us the first thing staff did when they attended to them was to ask, “Do you need help?” Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

People received support from kind and caring staff who knew them well. They went on to say they were in control of their care and support. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. One person said the staff were, “Very nice, all of them both day and night staff.” Another person said they had, “Plenty of free scope”, and there were, “No restrictions.” Another person told us, “The staff know I like bubbles [in the bath].”

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding adults and the registered provider’s whistle blowing procedure. One staff member said they had, “Never felt the need to use it [whistle blowing procedure].” Staff said any concerns they had would be taken seriously. Staff were well supported in their role and recruitment checks were carried out before they started caring for people.

The registered provider assessed potential risks. However, we found risk assessment records had not always been completed fully. We also found some of controls to manage risks had not been documented fully and lacked detail. We were unable to confirm with certainty that all incidents and accidents had been logged and investigated as records had been left blank.

People had their nutritional needs assessed, including identifying their eating and drinking preferences. Staff supported people to ensure they had enough to eat and drink. Where people were identified as at risk of poor nutrition action had been taken to keep them safe. People were supported to attend health related appointments.

Staff had access to information to help them better understand the needs of the people. This included a brief life history, information about their preferences and how they wanted to be supported. People needs had been assessed and the assessment used to develop person centred care plans. Care plans identified goals for people to aim towards. However these were not always specific to the individual needs of the person. Care plans were reviewed at least annually and whenever a person’s needs changed.

Most people said they had the opportunity to take part in activities if they chose to. They told us they enjoyed carpet bowls, quiz nights, bingo and social evenings.

People knew how to complain if they were unhappy. People we spoke with did not raise any concerns with us about their care. People had the opportunity to feedback their views about the support they received through an annual survey. Feedback from the most recent survey was positive.

Staff told us there was a positive culture within the service. They said they worked well together as a team. One staff member said good teamwork was, “Crucial to the service being good.” Another staff member said they were like, “One big happy family.” Regular team meetings were held to allow staff to give their views about the service.

The registered provider had systems in place to assess the quality of the care people received. This included unannounced spot checks on care practice and an external audit of the service. There were checks of the environment, health and safety, confidentiality, compliance with training, staffing and complaints. We saw examples of improvements made following checks and audits. Incidents and accidents were not regularly analysed to help keep people safe.