Archived: Circle of Care

Office 7, Units 12-14, Dinan Way Trading Estate, Exmouth, Devon, EX8 4RS (01395) 222757

Provided and run by:
Mrs Sharon Marie Marsh

All Inspections

12 April 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this inspection because we had received some concerns about this service. These related to staff being late, to office staff not being courteous or helpful and to some staff not receiving training in managing medicines or induction training.

We visited the office on 12 April 2012 from 9.30am until 12.30pm. The registered manager was not available when we arrived and joined us at approximately 11am. We spoke with six members of staff and looked at records relating to induction, training and staff supervision.

We contacted four people who used this service, or their relatives, to ask for feedback. We requested feedback from three social care professionals who had commissioned services from this agency, and received feedback from one.

Records showed that staff received training appropriate to their role. This included induction training and training relating to medicines. The manager explained that staff who had not worked in social care before would undergo "Skills for Care" induction training or would study to gain a national vocational qualification (NVQ) in care. Office staff told us that all staff who had been recruited since our last inspection had previous experience as a care worker, and therefore they did not need the Skills for Care induction training. We could not corroborate this as there was not a system in place that easily demonstrated this information. Staff explained that this information could be cross referenced with the care workers application form and references. The provider may find it useful to note that a system for clearly recording this would more easily identify staff learning and development needs.

Staff said they had received the support and training they needed to carry out their role. They told us that training included managing medicines. Records showed that staff received training and supervision. A recently introduced system should alert office staff to when staff training was due to be updated and when supervision was due.

People told us the service they received was "wonderful". They said that staff met their needs and appeared to have the right skills to do this. They said that staff "spoiled them" and often went beyond doing their job. They said they rarely needed to contact the office but when they did staff were helpful and courteous. One person said that their relative felt comfortable with staff and that staff were always polite and communicated well with this person.

A social care professional said they were satisfied with the support being provided. They said staff communicated well with both the professional and with the person they were supporting.

The manager explained that she was aware that some concerns had been raised about office staff and their attitude. She had commenced an investigation and had already talked with some people to gain their feedback and had identified some concerns. The manager provided us with a synopsis of her findings after completing her investigation and with an action plan as to how she was addressing the findings.

26 October 2011

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection the agency provided a personal care service to 43 people who lived in their own homes. The agency employed 30 care workers.

This inspection was carried out over three days on 26, 27 and 28 October 2011. On the first day we made an unannounced visit to the agency office where we talked to three senior members of the staff. We also talked to five care staff who were visiting the office during the day. We looked at the records held in the agency office on planning and timetabling of visits, care plans, medicine administration, recruitment, training, and quality assurance.

On the second day we visited four people in their homes, and on the third day we spoke to ten people and/or their relatives or advocates on the telephone. All of the people we visited or talked to told us they were entirely satisfied with the care and support they received. Comments included 'Fantastic!', 'Excellent!' and 'They are like part of the family'. One person described the care given to her mother recently when she was poorly. They told us the family had been 'delighted with the care' her mother had received.

We also asked for comments from social care professionals who had regular contact with the agency. We received six responses ' all positive about the agency.

Despite the high level of satisfaction expressed by people who used the service we found some weaknesses in the systems followed by the agency. They had already recognised that the way they planned care workers' rotas each week was inefficient and had ordered a new computer system that was due to be delivered in the very near future.

The agency had also recognised that their care plans did not give sufficient information and needed improvement. They showed us a sample care plan that listed every task the care workers were expected to complete, and explained clearly how the person wanted each task to be carried out. We were told that they hoped to re-write all of the care plans in the next few weeks to the same high standard.

During our visits to people there was an incident when two care workers failed to respect a person's privacy and dignity when assisting them to the toilet. Following our visit we talked to the provider who assured us she would ensure appropriate action would be taken to ensure people's privacy and dignity is always protected in future