All inspections: Copper Beech Homecare Limited

This was an announced inspection. We visited the provider’s offices on the 5 January 2016 and made calls to people using the service and their relatives on the 7 January 2016. The last inspection was in June 2014 and the service was compliant with the regulations in force at the time.

Copper Beech Home Care Ltd is a domiciliary care agency registered for the regulated activity of personal care. The service provides care and support to people in their own homes. At the time of inspection there were 20 people using the service.

There was a newly registered manager who had been in post since December 2015. 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 that people’s care was delivered safely and in a way of their choosing. People were supported in a manner that reflected their wishes and supported them to remain as independent as possible.

However not all recruitment records could demonstrate that the provider was following the correct process to recruit staff. The service did not consistently act upon and learn from accidents and incidents.

People’s medicines were managed well. Staff watched for potential side effects and sought medical advice as needed when people’s conditions changed. People and their family carers were supported to manage their own medicines if they wished.

Staff attended the provider’s induction and training and people felt the staff were trained to meet their needs. Staff had the skills to meet people’s needs. We found that formal supervision and appraisal processes were not fully established.

Not all people’s care plans had been signed and consented to. It was unclear if people had agreed to their care. Arrangements were in place to request support from health and social care services to help keep people healthy. External professionals’ advice was sought when needed. Families were consulted and felt involved. However it was not clear if the principles of the mental capacity act were followed when making decisions on how best to support people.

Care was provided by caring and attentive staff who took the time to get to know people and their families and support them in a manner of their choosing. People felt staff treated them with respect and kindness, taking to time to get them to know them as individuals.

People’s needs were assessed prior to the service starting work with them. However care records and plans did not always contain the level of details required to help staff provide people with personalised care. There were inconsistencies in how records were kept and how they were reviewed by the service.

People and their relatives felt able to raise any concerns they had and felt the registered manager would respond positively. We saw that complaints were investigated correctly and actions taken to improve the service.

There was a newly registered manager in place who was open with us about the issues they had identified as needing to improve the service, but the quality assurance processes in the service had not identified some of the issues we found at our visit. There was a lack of critical review and robust learning from issues. The service had not acted upon feedback from a survey of people and relatives.

People and staff felt the registered manager was caring and supportive and they felt able to contact them for support or to raise any issues.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

The support necessary to keep people safe was agreed with them before any care and support was delivered. Any changes to people's regular care workers were explained in advance and new workers shadowed more experienced workers before working alone. There were arrangements in place to ensure enough staff were always available to meet the needs of the people in their homes. A member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies. Appropriate checks had been made to make sure the care workers employed to work with people in their homes were suitable and had the required skills and experience.

Is the service effective?

People told us they were happy with the care that had been delivered, and said their needs were met. It was clear from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. One relative told us, 'I'm very impressed by the service, and I'm not easily impressed.' A second relative commented, 'I can't think how the care could be improved.' Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people they provided care for. People were asked to give written consent to their care plans, and told us care workers always asked their permission before giving them any personal care.

Is the service caring?

People and their relatives told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff, who showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our discussions with people's relatives confirmed this. One person told us, 'My carers are definitely very caring.' A relative commented, 'We are very happy with the care.'

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they started receiving a service. People told us they were asked for their views and these had been recorded. Records confirmed people's wishes, preferences, interests, likes and dislikes, and diverse needs had been recorded. People told us they had contributed to their care plans and their care and support was given in the ways they wished. One person told us, 'You just have to ring the office and you get support.' Staff were alert to changes in people's needs or condition and responded promptly by reporting such changes. This meant people's care changed in response to their changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a new registered manager in post, who had taken up her position in February 2014. The previous registered manager was still with the company in another role, and had ensured there had been good continuity of care during the new manager's induction period. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and effective quality assurance processes were in place. People who used the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment in questionnaires and in regular meetings and their views were acted upon. One person told us, 'The manager is doing a good job.' Staff spoke highly of the manager, and said she always took their views into consideration. One care worker told us, 'I know I can go straight to the manager with any issue, work or personal, and she will always listen and give good advice.' Relatives were also very positive about the manager. One told us, 'The care has been outstanding since the new manager took over.' Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and said they could access company policies and guidance.

Archived: Copper Beech Homecare Limited

All Inspections

5 and 7 January 2016

During a routine inspection

3 June 2014

During a routine inspection