You are here

Archived: Totnes Domiciliary Care Service (South Devon Support Service)

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

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 May 2011
Date of Publication: 7 July 2011
Inspection Report published 7 July 2011 PDF | 88.17 KB

People's personal records, including medical records, should be accurate and kept safe and confidential (outcome 21)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Their personal records including medical records are accurate, fit for purpose, held securely and remain confidential.
  • Other records required to be kept to protect their safety and well being are maintained and held securely where required.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 19/05/2011, observed how people were being cared for, talked to staff, reviewed information from stakeholders and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

Most of the agency’s records were properly stored and well maintained. The records of the support staff and of the people that live at the Plymouth scheme were not well organised or maintained. Staff providing support at this scheme may have difficulty in finding some records which could lead to important information being missed.

User experience

During our visit to the agency’s office and to the Plymouth scheme we saw how both the provider’s records and the records of the people that use the service were kept. We saw the storage and the records held for the three supported living schemes in South Devon. These records were well ordered and maintained. All the records and information we requested for these schemes was quickly and easily made available for review.

We saw that each person’s care plan and risk assessments were being stored both at the Plymouth scheme and at the agency’s registered office at Dartington. However because of the 45 minute travel time between the Plymouth scheme and the Dartington office, an unregistered office in Plymouth was often being used by managers responsible for the Plymouth scheme, to carry out administrative work. As a result, when we arrived at the agency’s office in Dartington we were told that the files we needed to see for people living at the Plymouth scheme would have to be brought from the unregistered Plymouth office for us to see at Dartington. These records were not being managed appropriately, and could not be obtained easily when we needed to see them.

We found that the personnel and the provider records for the people that use the Plymouth scheme were not well managed. However we were able to find most of the information we requested from these records.

On the following day we visited the Plymouth scheme by appointment and with the agreement of the people that live there we looked at peoples personal records. We found that each person’s records were stored altogether inside one large file. The contents of the files we sampled were jumbled and it was at times difficult to identify particular documents. This made it difficult for support staff to easily access peoples care planning and risk assessments.

People’s files were being kept confidentially in their bedrooms, or nearby when necessary.

The provider’s records of team meetings and support worker rota management were being kept at the Plymouth scheme rather than at the agency’s office. Some of these records could not be found when requested.

Other evidence

No other evidence was needed to make a judgement on this essential standard.