You are here

Caresta Limited - Office 8, St Erth Business Park Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

We inspected this service on 29 May and 30 May 2018. The inspection was announced because we wanted to ensure a manager was available to meet with us. At the last inspection, in February 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we have rated the service as ‘Good.’

Caresta Limited (trading as West Cornwall Care), provides people with personal care in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the service provided support for approximately 38 people for people in the Penzance, St Ives, Hayle and St Just in Penwith areas. The service works primarily with elderly people.

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. However a manager had recently been appointed, and an application had been submitted for the person to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. This was in order to meet its conditions of registration.

The service had satisfactory safeguarding policies and procedures to keep people safe. Staff were trained to recognise abuse, and what to do if they suspected abuse was occurring. Suitable risk assessment procedures were in place, and risk assessments were regularly reviewed. Where appropriate management and staff had submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Recruitment checks for new staff were satisfactory. For example, the registered provider obtained a Disclosure and Barring Service check and written reference check when the member of staff was recruited. When staff started to work at the agency they were required to complete a staff induction programme, which included relevant training which assisted the member of staff to carry out their job. The registered provider had a suitable system of staff supervision and annual appraisal.

Medicines procedures were safe, and we saw evidence that supported this, including administration records and systems to support people with medicines. Staff were trained in procedures to minimise the risk of infection. People and their relatives said staff were always well presented in thieir individual roles.. Staff said they were provided with disposable gloves and aprons to support them in their roles.

There were satisfactory procedures to assess people to check they were suitable to receive support from the service. Subsequently staff developed comprehensive care plans for people and these were regularly reviewed.

Where people received support to prepare meals. Procedures to monitor food eaten and fluid intake, if and where necessary, were satisfactory.

Where people lacked mental capacity, the agency provided people with the correct support to ensure their rights were protected.

Staff worked with people to maximise their independence. We received positive support about staff attitudes. Comments included; “They are very good,” “They are excellent, “ “I love them they are all very accommodating.”

The service had a complaints procedure. People said they would approach staff or management if they had a concern. People told us where they had raised concerns or complaints these had been managed sensitively and resolved appropriately.

Management were viewed positively by the people who used the service and staff who we contacted.

The staff team told us they worked well together. People and their relatives viewed staff positively and staff were viewed as caring.

Quality assurance processes were satisfactory to monitor the service was working effectively, and pick up and address shortfalls in service provision.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was safe

Suitable systems were in place to protect people from abuse

Employment checks were satisfactory to check staff members were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There were suitable procedures to ensure people received their medicines safely and on time.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was effective.

Staff induction and training were satisfactory to enable staff to carry out their roles.

People were happy with the food and received suitable support with eating and drinking where this was necessary.

The service had suitable policies and procedures, if people lacked mental capacity, to help ensure people’s rights were protected

Caring

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was caring.

People said staff were caring, kind and respectful.

People were involved in making decisions for themselves.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Each person had a care plan and these were regularly reviewed.

Staff provided people with support at a time they wanted. Staff arrived on time, stayed the correct amount of time, and did not miss visits. Most staff did not appear to be rushed.

There was a complaints procedure. People said they would approach staff or management if they had a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 July 2018

The service was well led

Management were viewed positively by people who used the service, their relatives and staff who worked for the service.

Staff worked well as a team, communication was good and staff appeared happy working for the provider.

Quality assurance processes were satisfactory to ensure the service was delivered effectively.