Background to this inspection
Updated
23 September 2016
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
The inspection visit took place on 26 August 2016 and was announced. This service was inspected by one inspector. The provider was given two days’ notice of our inspection because the agency provides care to people in their own homes. The notice period gave the manager time to arrange for us to speak with them and staff who worked for the service.
We reviewed information received about the service, for example the statutory notifications the service had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We found the PIR reflected the service provided. We also contacted the local authority commissioners to find out their views of the service. These are people who contract care and support services paid for by the local authority. They had no concerns about the service.
Before the inspection visit we contacted people via questionnaire to obtain their views of the quality of care. We wrote to 30 people and to 15 members of staff. We received four responses from people who used the service and six responses from staff. We used this information to make a judgement about the service.
During our inspection visit we spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager and two members of care staff. After our inspection visit we spoke by telephone with three people who used the service.
We reviewed five people’s care plans to see how their care and support was planned and delivered. We checked whether staff had been recruited safely and were trained to deliver the care and support people required. We looked at other records related to people’s care and how the service operated including the service’s quality assurance audits and records of complaints.
Updated
23 September 2016
This inspection visit took place on 26 August 2016 and was announced. The provider was given two days’ notice of our inspection visit to ensure the manager and care staff were available when we visited the agency’s office.
The service was last inspected in November 2013 when we found the provider was compliant with the essential standards described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.
St Dominic’s provides care to people in their own homes, within a single community. The service provides care and domiciliary support for older people and people with a learning disability who live in their own homes People were supported in 44 flats and 7 bungalows within the Extracare complex. Most people received personal care support with several visits each day. On the day of our inspection visit the service was providing support to 30 people. Some people who lived at St Dominic’s did not receive any support and were independent.
The service had a registered manager. 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. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.
People felt safe using the service and there were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety. These included procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and keep people safe. The character and suitability of staff was checked during recruitment procedures to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with people who used the service.
There were enough staff to deliver the care and support people required. People said staff arrived around the time expected and stayed long enough to complete the care people required. People told us staff were kind and knew how people liked to receive their care.
Staff received an induction when they started working for the service and completed regular training to support them in meeting people’s needs effectively. People told us staff had the right skills to provide the care and support they required. Support plans and risk assessments contained relevant information for staff to help them provide the care people needed in a way they preferred.
Staff were supported by managers through regular meetings. There was an out of hours’ on call system in operation which ensured management support and advice was always available for staff. The managers understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and staff respected people’s decisions and gained people’s consent before they provided personal care.
Everyone felt the manager was approachable. Communication was encouraged and identified concerns were acted upon by the manager and provider. People knew how to complain and information about making a complaint was available for people. Staff said they could raise any concerns or issues with the managers, knowing they would be listened to and acted on. The provider monitored complaints to identify any trends and patterns, and made changes to the service in response to complaints.
Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. People and staff were involved in developing the service and there was strong leadership which promoted an open culture and which put people at the heart of the service. There was regular communication with people and staff whose views were gained in relation to how the service was run and to make improvements.