You are here

Archived: Satellite Consortium Limited Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 18 August 2018

This was an announced comprehensive inspection that took place on 4 October 2017. Satellite Consortium Limited is a domiciliary care service registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service provides care and support for older people, people with physical and learning disabilities and sensory impairment and people living with dementia. At the time of inspection, the service was providing personal care to 68 people.

This service was last inspected on 28 September and 27 October 2016 where it was rated Requires Improvement. At the last inspection we found the provider to be in breach of four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations relating to mental capacity assessments, risk medicines administration, staff training, staff supervision and governance. After that inspection, the provider sent us an action plan to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

At this inspection we found that the provider had not fully followed their plan, which they had told us would be completed by February 2017. The provider had not addressed the breaches of the abovementioned regulations and there were repeated breaches in relation to the need for consent, safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. The provider had appointed a new manager who was undergoing the registration process with the Care Quality Commission. 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 provider did not identify, assess and mitigate risks associated with people’s health, care and mobility needs. Staff were not provided with sufficient information around risks involved in supporting people and how to minimise those risks to provide safe care. The associated care plans were not individualised and regularly reviewed. Staff were not provided with comprehensive and up-to-date information about people’s needs or how to support people safely whilst meeting their individual health and care needs. The provider did not maintain appropriate medicines administration records (MARs) for people who were supported with medicines administration and prompting. People’s care plans did not make reference to their mental capacity to make their own decisions. The provider did not effectively monitor staff punctuality and timekeeping, and missed and late visits were not recorded.

The provider did not notify us of two safeguarding cases. Not all staff received safeguarding training and staff lacked understanding of how to identify and report abuse. Safeguarding records did not give details on the investigation outcomes.

The provider did not follow safe and appropriate staff recruitment practices. Some staff recruitment checks including criminal record and reference checks were not in line with the provider’s policy.

Staff were not provided with induction training before they started working with people. Staff did not receive regular supervision, yearly appraisals and refresher training to enable them to do their jobs effectively.

People were encouraged to raise concerns and complaints. Staff told us they investigated people’s complaints but these were not recorded and there were no records of the investigation outcomes and lessons learned.

The provider did not maintain effective data management and monitoring systems to assess the quality and safety of care delivery. The provider was not auditing systems and processes related to care that was being provided including daily care logs and MARs. The provider had not analysed the feedback from people’s annual survey and had not identified areas of improvement.

People and th

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was not safe. Risks associated with people's health, care and mobility were not identified, assessed and mitigated. Staff were not provided with adequate information to provide safe care. People's medicines were not managed safely.

Staff were not trained in safeguarding and lacked understanding of identifying and reporting abuse. The provider did not notify us of two safeguarding cases.

Staff and management told us they required more staff to cover absences and emergencies. People's missed and late visits were not monitored and recorded. The provider did not follow safe recruitment procedures.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe with staff. Staff wore protective equipment to avoid the spread of infection.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was not consistently effective. Staff were not provided with regular supervision, induction and refresher training to do their job effectively. People deemed to lack capacity, did not have their capacity assessed. Staff were not trained in the Mental Capacity Act and were not provided with information on how to encourage people to make decisions.

The provider did not maintain records of how they worked with health and care professionals in providing individualised care.

People told us they were happy with nutrition and hydration support.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was not consistently caring. The provider did not train staff in equality, diversity and dignity in care.

People's end of life care wishes, their cultural and gender preference care needs were not recorded in their care plans. However, people told us their cultural, spiritual and gender preference care needs were met.

People and their relatives told us they found staff caring and helpful.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was not consistently responsive. People's care plans were not personalised and did not provide sufficient information for staff on how to provide individualised care. People's care plans were not reviewed following changes in their needs. Staff were not provided with up to date information on people's needs.

People were encouraged to raise concerns and complaints. However, the provider did not keep records of complaints that were made, how they were investigated, resolved and any learning gained as a result.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 18 August 2018

The service was not well-led. The provider lacked robust systems of governance to ensure people received a safe and good quality service. The provider did not carry out regular monitoring checks to assess and evaluate the safety and quality of care delivery. There was a lack of effective recordkeeping and data management systems.

The service had a manager in post who was in the process of becoming registered, People and their relatives told us communication was not effective and the service was not well-led. Staff told us they liked working with the provider and found the management approachable.