You are here

Archived: Direct Health (Warrington) Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 August 2016

The inspection was announced and took place on 6, 7, 8 July 2016.

The service was last inspected on 27 November 2013 where it was found to be compliant in all the areas that we looked at.

Direct Health (Warrington) has a registered manager in post. 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.

Direct Health (Warrington) is an agency providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. It predominantly provides the service in the Warrington and Salford areas. At the time of our inspection, they were providing services to 60 people in Warrington and 87 in Salford who all experienced various care needs from social support to maintaining their independence with full personal care needs. Visits ranged from fifteen minutes for up to six hours to give respite to family carers.

During this inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. There were ineffective systems in place for the safe management of medicines. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

The people who used the service and their relatives told us that they were treated with respect and kindness by the staff. Comments included, “The lady who comes here is the most wonderful caring person I could hope for” and “Nothing is too much trouble for the staff, they are all wonderful”.

People told us they felt safe with the staff and that they assisted them to maintain their independence wherever possible. We saw that there were systems in place to manage risks to people. For example we saw that staff had made referrals to the local health and social care agencies for equipment to keep people safe. This demonstrated that they continually assessed people’s changing needs to ensure they were safe.

Records showed that staff were trained to undertake risk assessment which meant they could identify issues in both the home environment or risks to people’s safety.

Arrangements were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. We spoke to staff about their understanding of safeguarding and they knew what to do if they suspected that someone was at risk of abuse or they saw signs of abuse. Relatives of the people who used the service told us that they felt that their relatives were safe and supported by the staff of Direct Health (Warrington).

The service actively involved people in their assessment which enabled them to make choices about the support they needed. People told us that they were able to make changes to times of visits if they had doctor or hospital appointment or if they had a social engagement.

We looked at recruitment files for the most recently appointed staff members to check that effective recruitment procedures had been completed. We found that appropriate checks had been made to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

People’s care and support was planned in partnership with them and their relatives and they told us they generally received support from a regular team of care staff who understood their needs. The care files that we looked at contained the relevant information that staff needed to care for the person in a manner of their choice.

People were supported to take their medicines however the medicines records were inconsistent. People had support plans in place but they did not identify clear details of medicines required and the medicine administration records (MAR) contained conflicting information. The registered manager was aware of this and was in the process of updating the systems to ensure they fully detailed the medicines prescribed and the dates and times they were to be administer

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 27 August 2016

The service was not always safe.

The prescribed medicines and the support people needed with medication was not always well documented.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safe guard people from abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide care for people in a safe and consistent manner. There were safe recruitment procedures to help ensure that people received their care and support from staff of suitable character.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 August 2016

The service was effective.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to ensure the rights of people with limited mental capacity were respected.

Staff received training to enable them to meet the assessed needs of the people who received the service.

Staff were supported in their role and regular meetings, spot checks and supervision meant that staff worked to the values and expectations of the service.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 August 2016

The service was caring.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s care and support needs were assessed and individual choices and preferences were discussed with people who used the service.

People�s support plans were updated regularly to ensure changing needs were identified and met.

People had access to the service�s complaint procedure and people told us that any concerns raised were swiftly dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 August 2016

The service was well led.

Systems for monitoring the service were effective. Where changes were needed they were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Staff were motivated and knew what was expected of them.

The registered manager was respected and admired by staff for her management skills.