You are here

Archived: Phoenix Healthcare & Recruitment Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 April 2015

This inspection took place on the 5 and 6 March 2015. At the last inspection on 29 July 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements in how they provided care to people and how they supported staff to carry out their role. Improvements had been made in all areas.

At the time of this inspection the manager had been in post for six weeks and was in the process of applying to the commission to become the 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.

The manager was aware of areas of the service that needed improvement and was working towards making those improvements.

People were protected from the risk of harm as staff had been trained to identify signs of abuse and knew how to respond to concerns. People’s relatives told us they felt safe using the service. Risks identified in the care planning process were recorded and staff were able to describe how they kept people safe. Where concerns were raised about the conduct of staff the provider took appropriate action to keep people safe.

People’s relatives told us staff were punctual and reliable. They turned up on time for visits and there were no missed calls. The provider was taking action to install a new computer system which will help them monitor the times of visits and the whereabouts of the staff.

People’s relatives told us and documentation showed people’s medicines were administered safely. They told us they trusted the staff who provided care as they had been trained to deal with the specific needs of each person. Care plans were kept up to date and communication was maintained between the office staff and the families to ensure any changes were recorded and appropriate action was taken.

We have made a recommendation about assessing people’s ability to make decisions about their care and giving consent. People with complex health needs were supported by trained staff in maintaining their food and fluid intake. Staff knew who needed specific support with regards to food and drinks, and the importance to people’s health and welfare. When changes occurred to people’s health staff knew how to respond appropriately.

People’s relatives told us staff treated the people they cared for with kindness and compassion. They told us they valued the staff and had a good relationship with them; they felt able to raise concerns or issues with the provider. People or their relatives were involved in the needs assessment completed before care commenced and in approving the final care plans and risk assessments. Care plans were monitored and updated when changes occurred. Staff spoke confidently about the needs of the people they were caring for and understood how to protect people’s dignity and privacy. They were also aware of how to support people to raise concerns or complaints.

People told us the service was well managed. People’s relatives told us the provider and the staff treated people with respect. They felt the person was cared for in a way that valued them as an individual. The manager was accessible to staff and had already implemented changes to increase staff motivation and to acknowledge the work they did.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 April 2015

The service was safe.

The relatives of people who used the service said they said they felt the person was safe when receiving care.

Staff knew how to identify and protect people from abuse. The provider had assessed the risks to people and where possible these had been minimised to protect people from harm.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2015

The service was mostly effective.

Staff had received training and understood how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applied to their role. However, assessments of people’s mental capacity had not always been completed. This meant it the provider could not be certain the individuals were consenting to the care they were receiving.

People’s relatives told us they were involved in how care was provided to people, and were asked about the person’s preferences and choices. Staff were trained to meet people’s individual needs. Assessments were completed prior to care being provided and reviewed regularly to ensure care was appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 April 2015

The service was caring.

People’s relatives told us they thought the staff were caring. They felt listened to by staff and they were treated with kindness.

Staff showed people respect and protected their privacy and dignity. They supported people to remain as independent as possible. Where people had requested regular staff this had been provided.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 April 2015

The service was responsive

Care was tailored to each person’s needs. Care plans were reviewed regularly. Staff responded appropriately and promptly when people’s health needs changed to ensure people’s health was maintained.

Where people or their relatives had made a complaint the provider responded appropriately and in a timely way.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 April 2015

The service was well led.

People told us they had confidence in the provider, because the service met their expectations. Staff felt supported. The provider regularly engaged with people to ensure the service was safe and effective.

The culture of the service encouraged staff and people to make suggestions as to how the service could be improved. The provider recognised and rewarded staff for the work they carried out.