You are here

Archived: Allied Healthcare - Leicester

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 December 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we visited the homes of two people who used the service. We also spoke by telephone with one other person who used the service and four relatives. We met with the manager and care supervisor and spoke with two other care staff. Although there was no registered manager there was a manager in post and they had recently commenced their registered manager application.

People who used the service, or their representatives, were asked to give their written consent to the arrangements in place for the delivery of their care and support.

People we spoke with confirmed that the service was delivered in a reliable way. One person told us, “My care is going very well. The staff are very good on time keeping.” Another person said, “The staff are very nice, they come on time, I have no worries whatsoever.”

A formal recruitment process was followed when new staff were appointed and relevant checks were carried out. Staff participated in a two week training programme prior to them starting in their new roles.

The provider carried out regular checks to help assure the quality of the service. They audited the information in care support diaries (which were used to record each staff visit and the support provided), checked medication administration records (MAR) and carried out unannounced spot checks on staff to monitor their performance and the quality of the service they provided.

Inspection carried out on 10 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person using the service and two family members of people using the service. People's comments about the service included, “In general very good.” , “A very good team.”, “I rate them very highly.” and “Nothing’s ever too much trouble for them.” One family member told us, “They care for my wife very well.” People using the service told us they had been involved in planning their care. When asked if they were treated with dignity, they all said they were, two people responding, "Yes, definitely."

Only one of the people we spoke with had help with medication. Their family member told us that care workers always properly recorded when they had administered medication.

The people we spoke with during this inspection told us that they usually saw the same care workers, who they knew by name. Everyone we spoke with thought the care workers were good at their job.

Two of the people we spoke with had been asked to complete a survey about their views of the service. The survey had only been sent out the week before our visit, so we could not judge from this whether the views of people using the service were acted on. One person remembered that the provider had called them soon after they started using the service to ask if they were satisfied. The people we spoke with felt able to make comments about the service and were confident that their views would be listened to.

Inspection carried out on 11 July 2011

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us that most of the staff were kind, caring and supportive, but they were more likely to feel they received good care where they had the same core group of staff. Some people told us there were too many changes of staff and they felt this affected the care they received. One person said, “Allied has gone through a period of transition and change. We have had between 27 and 30 carers in the year we have been receiving the service. The carers are doing their best but my wife has significant needs. I don't mind how many carers I get, but I would prefer that they have designated shifts, it gets wearing otherwise.”

The people we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff and they said if they raised any concerns about specific members of staff the agency dealt with it. One person told us, “I feel safe with the staff, if I had any concerns I would raise it with the agency and they would deal with it. I got rid of one member of care staff if I didn't feel safe with her, she has never been back.”

Most of the people we spoke with said they had not been asked for their views on the care being provided to them. This meant that the internal quality assurance of the service was missing a key part of the feedback on the service.