You are here

Archived: Charles House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 14 November 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 14 and 15 November 2016 and was announced to ensure the people we needed to speak with were available. Charles House provides a care service to people in their own homes. It is registered to provide personal care to older people, people living with dementia, people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder, people with a sensory impairment or mental health condition, younger adults and people with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection they were providing the regulated activity of personal care to 87 people. The provider’s office is located in Petersfield and care is provided to people living in the surrounding areas of Hampshire.

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. At the time of our inspection the registered manager was no longer actively fulfilling this role. The management of the service was carried out by the provider’s senior management team whilst they recruited for a new registered manager.

People told us they felt safe from abuse or harm from their care workers and they were supported safely by care staff. Staff had completed training in safeguarding children and adults from abuse and appropriate actions had been taken when concerns about people’s safety had been raised.

Staff we spoke with understood the risks that people experienced and took the appropriate actions to ensure people received safe and appropriate care. The provider had introduced an electronic care planning system PASS which enabled them to monitor risks to people when care was not delivered as planned. People were supported safely.

The provider had experienced some key office administration and management staff changes which had resulted in the day to day management of the service being overseen by the provider’s senior management team. This was to support the new office team through an induction into their roles. At the time of our inspection care supervisors and care coordinators were also providing personal care to people to ensure people’s care needs were met. There had been some disruption to the service people received however, this was improving as new care staff were recruited and office staff completed their induction. People told us that care staff were usually on time and stayed for the time agreed. Although people did not always experience the consistency of staff they would prefer; people did not report any harm as a result of these changes and had not reported any missed calls. Overall there were sufficient suitably qualified staff available to meet people’s needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely by appropriately trained staff and the provider monitored the administration of people’s medicines through their PASS system. This enabled them to check people had received their prescribed medicines at the time they required them.

People were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff because the provider carried out the relevant checks to ensure staff were recruited safely.

Staff completed an induction and on-going training in their role to enable them to care for people safely and effectively. Regular supervision was provided to staff so they were supported in their role.

People told us staff supported them to be as independent as they were able to be. People’s legal rights were upheld because the provider’s staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were asked for their consent to their care plan and where appropriate the provider sought confirmation of the legal authority other people held to make decisions on behalf of a person. This is important to ensure people were protected from inappropr

Inspection carried out on 25 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke to 20 people, or their relatives, about the care and support they received. We spoke to the manager and four care and management staff at the service. We also spoke to two health and social care professionals about the service provided by Charles House.

People told us they generally received a reliable service from Charles House and that care was provided as agreed with people. We saw that people had signed their care plan to agree its contents. People said they were treated with respect by the care staff.

Health and social care professionals said the service provided by Charles House was generally reliable and that they worked in conjunction with the service to meet people�s needs.

The service carried out checks that newly appointed staff were suitable to work with people.

A duty roster system was used by the service�s management to organise visits by carers to people. There were policies and procedures for emergencies such as when care staff were not able to gain access to people.

The service had a complaints procedure. We saw any complaint was recorded along with any action the service took to investigate the complaint. Records showed action was taken to address any concerns including referrals to local authority safeguarding teams.

Inspection carried out on 22 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service and they told us that the staff were kind and caring and supported them well. One person said "They always ask me if there is anything else I need and I can�t think of a thing" and "I get a schedule of staff so I know who to expect."

We found that peoples care needs had been appropriately assessed and care plans identified the support that was required by care staff and how to minimise risks. People told us that they received the care that had been planned and agreed.

Staff had received appropriate training in safeguarding and were able to demonstrate good understanding of the types of abuse and felt confident to report any concerns to the manager. People told us that they felt safe, well cared for and trusted the carers being in their home.

We found that staff received appropriate induction and training for their roles and that staff received regular supervision that included spot checks to ensure that they were providing the appropriate care.

The agency had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and demonstrated a desire to make improvements where necessary. Monitoring visits and spot checks had been carried out by the agency. People said they had been consulted regarding the services provided and communication with the agency was good.