You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

This inspection took place on 9 November 2017 and was unannounced.

At the previous inspection on 22 September 2016 we found SCA Care (Southampton) was not meeting the minimum standards required by the regulations. The provider had failed to make sure people received appropriate care and support which met their needs, and the provider had failed to follow legal guidance where people lacked capacity to make certain decisions. Following that inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions of effective and responsive to at least good. We received the provider’s action plan in the timescale requested.

At this inspection we found the necessary improvements had been made and sustained. There were no longer breaches of regulations.

SCA Care (Southampton) is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community and specialist housing. It provides a service to older people and younger adults who may have a range of needs arising from physical disability, a learning disability, dementia or mental health needs.

Not everyone using SCA Care (Southampton) received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with “personal care”, which is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post. However steps had been taken to recruit a manager who was in the process of submitting their registration application. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

The provider had arrangements in place to protect people from risks to their safety and welfare, including the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient to support people according to their agreed call schedules. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure only workers who were suitable to work in a care setting were employed. There were appropriate arrangements in place for infection control and the management of medicines.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge to support people according to their needs. Staff were aware of the need to provide care and support only with the person’s consent and of legal requirements where a person was unable to consent. Where appropriate, people were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and welfare. People were supported to access healthcare services, such as GPs and community nurses.

Care workers had developed caring relationships with people they supported. People were supported to take part in decisions about their care and support and their views were listened to. Staff respected people’s independence, privacy, and dignity.

Care and support were based on assessments and plans which took into account people’s abilities, needs and preferences. People were kept aware of the provider’s complaints procedure, and complaints were managed in a professional manner.

The service had an open, responsive ethos. Systems were in place to make sure the service was managed efficiently and to monitor and assess the quality of service provided.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected against risks to their safety and wellbeing, including the risks of abuse and avoidable harm.

The provider employed sufficient staff and carried out recruitment checks to make sure workers were suitable for work in a care setting.

Processes were in place to make sure medicines were administered safely and people were protected against the risk of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was effective.

People�s care and support were based on effective assessments and care plans.

Staff were supported by training and supervision to care for people according to their needs

People consented to their care and support and staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 if people lacked capacity to make decisions.

People had access to other healthcare services when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was caring.

People had developed caring relationships with their care workers.

People were able to participate in decisions affecting their care and support.

People�s independence, privacy and dignity were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care and support met their needs and took account of their preferences.

There was a complaints procedure in place, and complaints were dealt with professionally.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 May 2018

The service was well led.

An effective management system and processes to monitor and assess the quality of service provided were in place.

There was an open, welcoming culture in which people were treated as individuals and could speak up about their care and support.

Arrangements were in place to sustain the quality of service provided.