• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Valuing Independence

86 & 88 Christian Mill Business Park, Tamerton Foliot Road, Crownhill, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 5DS (01752) 659298

Provided and run by:
Valuing Independence Limited

All Inspections

20 January 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We were told during our visit on 29 November 2011 by the provider that the management of the service had not been adequate before but that action had now been taken to introduce effective management. We were told at that time that the failures that were identified during that inspection would be remedied within four weeks from the date of our visit to the service's office. However, though this review that began on 20 January 2012 found that there had been improvements in some areas since our last inspection, the service continued to be non compliant.

Some people who used the service told us that they were happy with the support they were receiving. We spoke to a parent of a person that used the service and they also were happy with the service that was being received by their relative. They said the service was good because they could rely on the agency and because there was good communication with them. However it was reported that other people were not happy with the service they were receiving or had received.

We received information from professionals that had been involved with the support of a number of the people that used the agency during 2011 and into 2012. They were concerned about the behaviour of agency managers, and the quality of the service being delivered to people.

We concluded, based on all the information that we obtained during the inspection process, that the administration of the service was not operating effectively and that a number of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 were being breached.

We found evidence that people that used the service had not been treated with respect or their dignity maintained due to the actions of the service and its managers.

We found that where the service had taken responsibility for the management of peoples financial affairs it had not carried out this responsibility effectively to the detriment of people that used the service.

Most of the people that used the service had complex behavioural needs that required both careful assessment and thoroughly planned care. Though the planning and administration of some people's care had been improved since our last inspection of the service there was still more improvement necessary for assessment and care planning to reach an appropriate standard.

We were told by a number of professionals about issues they had experienced in their work with the service. They had experienced serious problems with communication and the administration of the agency to the detriment of the support they were able to give to people that used the service.

Since our last inspection of the service considerable changes and improvements had been made to the administration of peoples' medication. The facilities and administration system had been improved at the agency's office. The administration system was now compliant with the essential standard.

Since our last inspection of the service considerable changes and improvements had also been made to the training and support received by the support workers. We saw evidence both that the support workers had begun to receive supervision from the management and that training records were being redesigned. However the necessary further improvement of staff training was still to be completed.

Overall we found that the provider was not operating effective systems to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, welfare and safety of people that used the service. These failures were putting people that used the service at risk of receiving inappropriate care and support.

29 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People who wanted to speak with us told us that they were happy with the support they were receiving from the service. They said the service was good because the support was flexible and reliable, and their support workers were knowledgeable and were consistently the same people.

People's dignity was generally respected. We heard the support staff address people that use the service respectfully when they visited the service's office, using people's preferred names. All of the conversation we saw and heard was friendly and patient and people's first names were used. However we also saw occasional inappropriate words used in peoples care plans. We were told by the management of the service that every person's individual tenancy agreement was being kept by the service but had been lost. We found that people's dignity and independence was not always being supported by the service.

Most of the people that use the service have complex behavioural needs that require both careful assessment and to be met by thoroughly planned care. However we found that the assessment and planning of the delivery of peoples care was poor.

People were not being protected against the risks of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care because their needs were not being carefully assessed and the delivery of their care was not being adequately planned.

We saw that the service had adequate adult protection systems in place to help protect the vulnerable people that use the service from abuse.

The service's medication administration system was complex and involved the storage of medication in the service's office. People's medication was generally being stored safely. However the service did not have appropriate storage and recording for medications that might be managed as Controlled Drugs. The recording of the administration of other medications was not well documented.

The service's system of recording, safe keeping, and dispensing of peoples' medication did not protect people's medicines from the risk of being mismanaged.

Support workers had been receiving training but training records were incomplete and disorganised. Support workers had received informal support from their managers but the system of formal supervision and appraisal had not been operating for some time when we reviewed the service. The support workers were not being given the support they needed to enable them to support the people that use the service safely and to an appropriate standard.

The service's quality assurance system was not operating at the time of the review. We saw throughout the review that many of the service's administrative systems were not operating effectively. The provider was not delivering effective systems designed to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, welfare and safety of people that use the service. These failures were putting people at risk of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.