• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Solent Care at Home Service

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 10b, Dragoon House, Hussar Court, Brambles Business Park, Waterlooville, Hampshire, PO7 7SF (023) 9225 9209

Provided and run by:
Leonard Cheshire Disability

All Inspections

29 and 30 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook this announced inspection on 29 and 30 September 2015.

Solent Care at Home is a domiciliary care service providing care and support to people living in their own homes. The office is based in Waterloovile and the service currently provides care and support to people living in the surrounding area. At the time of our inspection there were 192 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. This 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.

Staff had not received all of the training relevant to their role. Despite describing itself as a specialist learning disability and autism service, staff had not undergone training in these areas.

People told us they felt safe using the service. They said their care workers identified themselves on arrival and this made them feel safe. All staff had had safeguarding training and knew what to do if they had concerns about the well-being of any of the people using the service.

Staff were safely recruited to help ensure they were fit to work with people who use care services.

Staff supported some people with their meals. Most people said they were pleased with how their meals were prepared and served however some people felt this could be improved. Staff were flexible with meals and understood that people might change their minds about what they wanted on a day to day basis.

People told us staff were aware of their health care needs and knew when to call the GP or other healthcare professionals if they needed them. If people appeared un-well staff knew what to do. If people needed support with their medication staff provided this safely.

People told us the staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. They gave us many examples of staff member’s caring approach to them. Records showed that people’s care was provided by either a single staff member or a group of two to three care workers. This enabled people to get to know the staff who supported them.

People were directly involved in the planning of their care and encouraged to be independent and made choices about how they wanted their support provided.

All the people we spoke with said they were happy with the service which they said was well-run.

People told us they were often visited by ‘managers’ to check on their well-being and monitor their care and support. People using the service were consulted and their opinions sought on all aspects of the service.

We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

1 October 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the time of our visit there were 270 people who used the service and 109 members of staff who provided care and support. We spoke to 15 people who used the service and 19 relatives, 10 members of staff.

The inspection team consisted of a lead inspector and three experts by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

The focus of the inspection was to check compliance following previous non- compliance at an inspection carried out on 25 February 2014. Previous non-compliance was in regard to respecting and involving people who use service, care and welfare of people who use services, management of medicines and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. The provider told us they would be compliant with these outcomes by 1st October 2014.

We set out to answer our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People and their relatives told us they felt safe, one person said, '[Carer] talks to me and makes me feel safe'. A relative said, 'We trust them.' We found the provider had taken the appropriate action to ensure people's care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured peoples safety and welfare, however we found there were no systems in place to make sure lessons were learned from any accidents and incidents.

We found the provider had taken the appropriate action to ensure people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place for the safe administration, reporting, recording and checking of medicines.

Is the service effective?

People consented to their care and treatment.

People's medicine records and risk assessments were not always accurate and fit for purpose. There were inconsistencies between people's risk assessment and medicines information that did not always correspond with their care plans. However people were not at risk of unsafe care as members of staff supporting them knew what support was required.

Is the service caring?

People and their relatives told us staff were caring. We received comments such as, 'We don't think that we could get better care anywhere else,' and, 'I can hear the kindly and reassuring way the carers speak to my relative.'

People's views and experiences were taken into account and their privacy and dignity was respected in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Is the service responsive?

Steps had been taken to ensure people were asked for their views about their care and they were acted on.

Appropriate steps had been taken to ensure the provider had an effective system in place to identify, risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service but not to assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service

People and their relatives told us care plans were regularly updated and staff confirmed changes were highlighted in updated care plans.

Is the service well led?

There was a registered manager in place but they were not present on the day of the inspection due to annual leave. They had provided an action plan highlighting improvements would be made and they would become compliant by 1 October 2014. They had informed us of who would be responsible for the running of the service during their absence. We found improvements had been made since our last inspection, however there were some parts of the provider's action plan which had not been met resulting in further non-compliance.

27 February 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there were approximately 271 people who used the service for personal care and 100 staff who worked for the agency.

During our inspection of Solent care at home service we spoke to 28 people who used the service, nine members of staff and the registered manager.

There were policies and procedures in place for staff to use to assist them to provide care and support to people in line with their needs and wishes. Examples of these included person centred planning policy, medicines policy, equality and diversity and Absence Management Policy. However we found that they were not always followed in practice.

People who used the service expressed their satisfaction with the service. One said 'My regular carers are brilliant' and another person said 'my carers are always very patient."

People's needs were not always accurately assessed and care, treatment and support was not always planned in line with individuals needs and preferences. Assessments we saw were inconsistent with people's care plans and we found difficulty in identifying the correct needs of the people who used the service. These were not always fully completed and it was unclear which document provide the most accurate and up to date information.

We found that the service did not follow their medicines policy and did not provide sufficient information to staff about the support needs of people. This meant that people could be at risk of receiving support that was inappropriate, unsafe and did not meet their needs.

We found that there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff available to provide the service effectively.

We found that the service did not have effective monitoring processes in place to help regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service being provided.

30 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We interviewed managers and staff, as well as carrying out telephone interviews with people using the service and their relatives.

People told us they were happy with the services provided, and were aware of their plans of care and support. People said they were given appropriate information, and were involved in decisions about their care and support. We were told by people using the service that the support they received helped them to remain living at home safely, and to remain independent.

People said their needs had been assessed and the service was planned and delivered in line with their individual plan. We were told that people felt safe and well supported by staff who knew what they were doing.

We saw that there were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. People who use the service were safeguarded and protected from the risk of abuse.

Staff had received appropriate professional development and training and were encouraged and supported to obtain further relevant qualifications.

We found systems in place to quality assure the service. These arrangements included the opportunity for people who use the service, their representatives and staff to be asked for their views about the services being provided and feedback was acted on.

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.