You are here

Archived: Birmingham Business Associate Limited Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

This inspection took place on 8 March 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice that we would be visiting the service. This was because the service provides domiciliary care to people living in their own homes and we wanted to make sure staff would be available. At our last inspection in March 2015, the provider was found to be requiring improvement. This included recruitment checks, safe management of people’s medicines and ineffective systems in place to encourage feedback from people. We re-inspected the service within 12 months as this is the standard set by CQC and found there had been improvements made to these areas.

Birmingham Business Associate Limited is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service currently provides care and support to 15 people, ranging in age, gender, ethnicity and disability.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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 had made improvements to their quality assurance and audit systems to monitor the care and support people received. However, improvement was required in matching staff with the right skills to meet people’s individual needs. The frequency of staff supervision and spot checks also required some improvement.

People were left safe and secure in their homes. People were kept safe and protected from harm because staff understood their responsibility to take action to protect people. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm.

People were involved in planning their care and management of any risks identified in relation to the care they received. People received care and support from staff that were trained and supported to carry out their roles.

People were supported by staff that had been safely recruited. People were supported with their medication by staff that had received appropriate training.

People and relatives felt staff had the skills and knowledge to care and support people in their homes. Where appropriate, people were supported to access health and social care professionals.

The provider was taking the appropriate action to protect people’s rights to ensure their liberty was not being restricted.

People and relatives felt the staff was caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People felt their independence was respected and promoted and staff responded to people’s support needs.

People and relatives felt they could speak with the provider about worries or concerns and felt they would be listened to and have their concerns addressed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was safe

People felt safe with the staff that provided them with support. People were safeguarded from the risk of harm because risk assessments were in place to protect them.

People were supported by staff that were recruited safely, to ensure that they were suitable to work with people in their own homes.

People were reminded by staff to take their medicines as prescribed by their GP.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was effective

People felt staff had the skills and knowledge to assist them and were happy with the care provided.

People were supported to make decisions about their care where possible. People�s human rights and rights to liberty were maintained.

People received medical support when it was required.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was caring

People�s independence was promoted as much as possible.

People were supported by staff that was kind and respectful.

People�s privacy and dignity was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was responsive

People received care and support that was individualised to their needs, because staff was aware of people�s individual needs.

People knew how to raise concerns about the service they had received.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 April 2016

The service was not always well-led

Staff felt supported and valued by the management team. However, there was inconsistency relating to the frequency of supervision and spot checks to monitor staff skills and knowledge

People were happy with the quality of the service. However, sometimes the provider was not always effective when matching staff with people�s support needs.

Quality assurance and audit processes were in place to monitor the service to ensure people received a quality service.