You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 12 February 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Sittingbourne is a domiciliary care agency which provides domestic care and personal care to people who live in their own home, including people living with dementia and physical disabilities. The agency provides care and support for people in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Isle of Sheppey areas of Kent. The office is situated in Milton Regis, Sittingbourne. At the time of the inspection 69 people were receiving personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service met characteristics of Good in all areas.

People, their relatives and staff told us the quality of care was good and that the service was well managed. Comments included, “The service is very good all round” and “I have been with the service for 10 years and wouldn’t consider changing because it is very reliable and the staff are attentive and helpful”

¿ People felt safe and that staff supported them well, meeting their needs in the way they preferred. One relative said, “[My loved one] knows and trusts the staff so I know they feel safe”.

Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm and knew how to report any concerns.

¿ People spoke with staff about any potential risks to their health and welfare. These were assessed, monitored and regularly reviewed and there was clear guidance for staff to follow about how to make sure people were safe.

¿ People’s needs were assessed and monitored to help promote a good quality of life.

¿ People told us that staff knew them well and were knowledgeable, providing effective care and supporting them to maintain a healthy lifestyle and have access to health care professionals as needed.

¿ People felt empowered to make decisions about their care and support and to maintain control of their lives. Staff supported people to do as much for themselves as they chose or could.

¿ People said staff were kind, compassionate and caring and took their time to carry out their duties and did not rush. They said they had regular staff to provide their support and that they arrived on time. They said, “I am very pleased with the service as it’s reliable and the staff always turn up on time” and “Staff turn up on time and the calls are for the right amount of time”.

¿ People felt respected and that they valued their relationships with the staff.

¿ People told us they received personalised care that was tailored to them and responsive to their needs. Each person had a care plan, which staff followed, that reflected people’s physical, emotional, social and mental health needs. These were available in different formats to make sure the information was accessible.

¿ People knew how to complain but had no complaints. One person told us, “There has been no need to complain as the office staff are helpful and minor issues get sorted out straight away. I have no concerns about the service at all”.

¿ People said the service was well-run and well managed and that they would recommend the service to others. They said staff were willing to ‘go the extra mile’. People and staff felt the registered manager and provider were approachable and listened to them.

¿ The management team continued to complete audits and checks on the quality of the service and continued to look at ways to drive improvements.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (report published May 2017)

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained Good in all areas and Good overall.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.or

Inspection carried out on 26 April 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This inspection took place on 26 April 2017 and was announced.

Sittingbourne is a domiciliary care agency run by B.A.C. Care Limited. The service is based in Milton Regis near Sittingbourne. It provides personal care to people who live in their own home, including people with dementia and physical disabilities. The service provides care for people in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Isle of Sheppey areas of Kent. At the time of the inspection there were 71 people receiving personal care and support from the service.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. 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 last comprehensive inspection, the service was rated Good overall and Requires Improvement in the 'Effective' domain.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of this service on 13 July 2016. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act Regulated Activities Regulations 2014, Person-centred care. The provider told us they had met the regulation by 27 October 2016. We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Sittingbourne on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why the service is rated Good in the effective domain.

Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. These were reviewed regularly. Staff received regular training and supervision to help them to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 13 July 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on the 13 July 2016. This inspection was announced.

Sittingbourne is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people who live in their own home, including people with dementia and physical disabilities. The service provides care for people in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Isle of Sheppey areas of Kent. There were 87 people receiving support to meet their personal care needs on the day we inspected.

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 our previous inspection on 07 September 2015 we found breaches of Regulation 9, Regulation 12 and Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We asked the provider to take action in relation to these breaches.

The provider sent us an action plan the day after we inspected the service which stated that they would comply with the regulations by 30 November 2015.

People and their relatives were positive about the service they received.

People had appropriate support when required to ensure their nutrition and hydration needs were well met. However, one person had not always received appropriate support in relation to meeting the hydration needs which meant they were at risk of choking.

Medicines were appropriately managed and administered. Medicines audits had been carried out. Medicines records were completed, one person’s showed a gap, this was because staff had not documented that the person was in hospital. We made a recommendation about this.

People received a service that was safe. Staff and the management team had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and recorded with measures put into place to manage any hazards identified.

Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support. There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people’s needs.

Procedures and guidance in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place which included steps that staff should take to comply with legal requirements. Capacity assessments followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were effective. The management team and provider carried out regular checks on the service to make sure people received a good service. Policies and procedures were in place, which meant staff had access to up to date information and guidance.

Staff had received training about protecting people from abuse and showed a good understanding of what their roles and responsibilities were in preventing abuse.

Staff had received regular support and supervision from their line manager.

People’s information was treated confidentially. People’s paper records were stored securely in locked filing cabinets.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised when people were not acting in their usual manner.

People’s needs had been assessed to identify the care and support they required. Care and support was planned with people and reviewed to make sure people continued to have the support they needed. People’s care plans detailed what staff needed to do for a person. The care plans included information about their life history and were person centred. People were supported to be as independent as possible.

Relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and communicated well with them.

People and their relatives had been involved with planning their own care. S

Inspection carried out on 07 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on the 07 September 2015. This inspection was announced.

Sittingbourne is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people who live in their own home, including people with dementia and physical disabilities. The service provides care for people in the Faversham, Sittingbourne and Isle of Sheppey areas of Kent. There were 84 people receiving support to meet their personal care needs on the day we inspected.

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.

People’s views about the service they received were positive. Relatives felt their family members received safe, effective, compassionate, responsive and well led care.

Recruitment practices were not always safe, gaps in employment history had not always been explored.

Risk assessments lacked detail and did not give staff guidance about any action staff needed to take to make sure people were protected from harm.

Staff had been given training in essential areas. Staff had not always been given training relating to people’s individual health needs. We made a recommendation about this.

People’s care plans detailed what staff needed to do for a person. The care plans did not include information about their life history and were not person centred. We made a recommendation about this.

People were given information about how to complain. This did not include information about who to contact if they were unhappy with the response to their complaint. We made a recommendation about this.

Staff knew and understood how to safeguard people from abuse, they had attended training, and there were effective procedures in place to keep people safe from abuse and mistreatment.

Staff received regular support and supervision from the manager. There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were appropriately managed and recorded.

People’s information was treated confidentially. People’s paper records were stored securely in locked filing cabinets.

Procedures and guidance in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was in place which included steps that staff should take to comply with legal requirements.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised when people were not acting in their usual manner.

People and relatives told us that staff were kind, caring and communicated well with them.

People and their relatives had been involved with planning their own care. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People’s view and experiences were sought through review meetings and through surveys.

People were supported to be as independent as possible.

People told us that the service was well run. Staff were positive about the support they received from the manager. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to.

Audit systems were in place to ensure that care and support met people’s needs.

Communication between staff within the service was good. They were made aware of significant events and any changes in people’s behaviour.

We found several breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection carried out on 9 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with and responses we received through the surveys were generally positive about the care people received. People were happy with their regular carers and felt they supported them with all their needs. Some people felt that when a new carer visited they were not always clear about the support they should be providing.

People felt that they were treated with dignity and respect.

People�s needs were fully assessed and reviewed on a regular basis. Care plans gave staff clear and individualised information about the support people needed.

There were procedures in place to ensure people were protected against the risk of abuse.

Staff received training appropriate to their role and people felt that they were cared for by staff who were trained.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

Overall people were happy with the service they received although they told us that they thought there were times when staff were rushed.

Inspection carried out on 16 January 2013

During a routine inspection

The visit was carried out by one inspector who spent four hours visiting the office and was able to speak to the registered manager, a senior manager and an assessor. We also spoke with three care staff, four people who used the service and two family carers during telephone conversations following our visit.

We found that people were visited by the same care staff on a regular basis and changes were only made for reasons of ill-health, annual leave or adverse weather conditions. People said they were usually told about any changes. Comments included, "I'm visited by the same girls at the time I expect them" and "Someone will tell me if there are any changes".

We saw that each person had an individualised plan of care that gave staff information on how to support each person. Care staff we spoke with were clear about the different care needs for the people they visited and were able to tell us how they helped people.

Everyone we spoke with said that the care staff were caring and respected their privacy and dignity. One person said "They always talk to me and make me laugh. I really enjoy the singing. They never go without making sure everything is done".

People felt safe and well supported by the care staff who visited them.

People were supported to have their say about the service and were listened to if they had any concerns.

Inspection carried out on 4 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were happy with care and support provided by the care staff who visited them. They were complimentary about staff who visited them and said that staff would always make sure they helped them with everything they needed. Comments included "I am very happy with the care and support I get" and "I wouldn't go anywhere else". People told us that care staff were polite and always respected them.

People said that they were visited on a regular basis by a senior member of staff and that they were given a care plan and had the opportunity to discuss their care needs.

We were told that generally people thought the communication processes were good, and that they were usually told about any changes in their visits. People said, however, that sometimes this did not happen and they weren't informed if someone was going to be late or if there was a change in carer. People said that it didn�t happen often, but one person said that if it did happen then it was usually at the weekends.

People told us that staff always stayed the full length of time and that if staff were late it was only about five or ten minutes.

People told us that they didn't have any complaints but if they did they were confident that they could contact the office and that any issues would be resolved.