• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Lady Anne Care Agency

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

59 Teignmouth Road, Teignmouth, Devon, TQ14 8UR (01626) 778808

Provided and run by:
Mrs Delya A White

All Inspections

21 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Lady Anne Care Agency provides live-in care and support to older people, who live in their own homes, in the area of Devon. At the time of this announced inspection, nine people were receiving personal care from the service.

The service had a registered manager. They were planning to retire and were not available at the time of our inspection. The registered manager visited the service once a week. They were on call at all times. 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. There was a new manager in post who had worked at the service for around three months. They planned to register as manager. They are referred to as ‘the manager’ throughout the report.

The service met all of our regulations at the previous inspection in July 2013. We visited the office and carried out a home visit and telephone calls to people and their relatives on 21 September 2016

People told us staff knew how to meet their needs. Comments included "They do a good job” and “They seem to be trained and understand (name’s) needs”. Some staff were completing diplomas in health and social care. However, not all staff had received up to date training to ensure they could meet people’s needs effectively. Some staff had not received training in moving and handling, medicines, first aid, health and safety, safeguarding, MCA and infection control.

Some care plans were out of date and didn’t reflect people’s current needs. People had a care plan in their home with details of the care and support services they were receiving. Some of these plans were brief or basic and did not include significant detail, but people told us that the staff knew what they needed and how they liked it done. Systems in place had not identified this, over a long period of time.

People who used this agency benefitted from staff who knew them well, and from a management team who were committed to providing a personal service. However, we found that systems for auditing practice had not been in place or were not robust enough. Since the manager had started work at the service, they had identified a number of shortfalls. They had written an action plan to address these.

People and their relatives were happy with the staff who supported them. Comments included "Very good indeed”; “They have been wonderful” and “Happy with staff”. Staff spoke about the people they cared for with compassion and concern. People told us staff were respectful and polite. We saw a staff member interact with one person in a friendly way, they knew each other well and the staff member chatted with them with warmth. People were supported with their health and dietary needs, and told us that staff would prepare meals of their choice. One person commented that their live in care staff was a good cook.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and comfortable when staff were in their home and when they received care. People told us "I feel safe" and "There’s nothing to worry about". Staff knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse and understood how to report any concerns. Safe staff recruitment procedures were in place. This helped identify and reduce risks in the employment process.

Risks to the health, safety or well-being of people who used the service were assessed and reduced where possible. Where incidents had occurred, appropriate action had been taken and an investigation had been carried out to prevent a reoccurrence.

People were supported safely with their medicines and told us they were happy with the support they received. Staff completed medication administration record (MAR) sheets after giving people their medicines. We saw these had been fully completed.

People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns or make a complaint. They were confident their concerns would be taken seriously. People told us they didn't have any complaints. Comments included "Nothing could be better” and “We would contact them if we did have any concerns”. One relative told us when there had been an issue in the past it had been dealt with promptly.

People told us the management were approachable and they were happy with the service. Comments included "I’m very happy with it” and “I can call the office if I need to”. Staff told us there was an open culture. Staff said "Really approachable” and “We talk on the phone”. When one staff member experienced a problem, their feedback was “(manager’s name) really listened to me and supported the issues”.

We found two breaches 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.

16 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit, the service was providing home companions to approximately 20 people. We spoke with two people who used the service and two relatives.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they were very happy with the care they received. They said "they (the home companions) are very good' and 'they are marvellous'. We found that care plans were in place so care workers knew how to meet people's needs. However the provider may wish to note these lacked detail which could put people at risk of receiving inadequate care.

People who used the service told us they felt safe when home companions came into their homes. Home companions knew how to report concerns to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm.

Recruitment checks and training had been undertaken to ensure people were supported by appropriate home companions.

The service had quality assurance systems to ensure they were able to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People who used the agency told us they were asked about the quality of the service. People told us that their comments were listened to and acted upon. People told us "They are very good, the office sort any problems I have' and 'I have no concerns'.

13 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three Home Companions and asked them how they ensure people are involved in their care. One companion told us that they 'let the person take the lead, they are in charge, I prompt if necessary. People are able to tell us what they want and we respect their preferences'.

We visited three people in their home and they all told us they were very happy with the support they received from their Home Companion.

We spoke with three Home Companions and they told us they had not received, or had been directed to, safeguarding adults training during their time with the agency.

All Home Companions we spoke with told us that they had not received, or had been directed to, training and had not had any formal supervision or appraisals but did have occasional telephone contact from the agency.

There was no evidence of any systems for recording and evaluating information about the quality and safety of care, treatment and support the agency provides.

We discussed the quality of care plans and assessments with the deputy manager who acknowledged there were gaps in the care planning process and the quality of care planning was not good. We were told that plans are in place to develop risk assessments and to make care plans more person centred.