• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Better Healthcare Services (Cambridge)

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

13-14 Burleigh Street, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB1 1DG (01223) 464999

Provided and run by:
Better Healthcare Services Ltd

All Inspections

19 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Better Healthcare (Cambridge) is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection they were providing a service to 17 people living in the Cambridge area. They are also registered to provide nursing care and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. However a representative of the provider stated that they did not carry this out and would be applying to cancel these two regulated activities.

This announced inspection took place on 19, 20, 21 and 28 October 2016.

At the time of the inspection there was not a registered manager in place. 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 home is run. A new manager had commenced working in the role in September 2016 and was in the process of applying to the commission to be registered.

The system to monitor the quality of the care being provided and to drive improvement was not effective and this impacted on all areas of the service.

Risks had not always been managed to keep people as safe as possible. Risk assessments had not always been completed. This meant that staff did not have the information they required to ensure that people received safe care.

Incidents had not been recorded or managed effectively to identify any action that needed to be taken. Systems and training were not in place to ensure that staff dealt with behaviour that challenged others appropriately.

We could not be confident that people were receiving their medication as the prescriber had intended. Medication administration records (MAR’s) had not been completed accurately which meant that it was not clear if people had received the medication that they were prescribed. The audits of the MAR’s were not effective as they did not always identify areas of concern that required investigation. There were not enough staff employed to ensure that people received their care at the agreed time, and on some occasions staff did not arrive at the persons home to provide care at all. Due mainly to an insufficient number of care staff, people had experienced a high number of missed calls.

The recruitment procedure had not always been followed to ensure that only the right people had been employed.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, and to report on what we find. The provider was not acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA. They could not demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care and where people were unable to make decisions, there were no records showing that decisions were being taken in their best interests. This also meant that people were potentially being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law.

Care plans did not contain all of the relevant information that staff required so that they knew how to meet people’s current needs. We could not be confident that people always received the care and support that they needed. People had not always received food and drink as their care plan stated.

Not all complaints had been recorded appropriately. This meant that we could not be confident that complaints were being dealt with effectively.

The provider is required by law to notify the Commission of certain events so that we can monitor the service. These notifications had not been submitted to the Commission.

Staff were aware of the procedure to follow if they thought someone had been harmed in any way.

New care staff completed induction training and shadow shifts to ensure they were competent for their role. The care staff treated people with dignity and respect.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

6 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Better Healthcare Services (Cambridge) provides personal care to people who live in their own homes. There were 46 people using the service when we visited. The inspection took place on 6 August 2015 and we gave the provider 48-hours’ notice before we visited. This was to ensure that the manager was available to facilitate the inspection.

The last inspection was carried out on 10 June 2014 when we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 we assessed against.

Although there was a registered manager in post the provider was in the process of applying to deregister the person as they ceased employment on 19 January 2012. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. A new manager had been appointed.

Staff were knowledgeable about reporting any concerns about people’s safety. There were a sufficient number of staff employed to provide care to people and recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that care and support could be safely provided and actions were taken to reduce people’s identified risks. Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were supported and protected with the safe management of medication.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that people who used the service had their capacity to make day-to-day decisions formally assessed. At the time of our inspection no one in receipt of care had been deprived of their liberty.

Staff were supported and trained to do their job. The service had regular contact with a range of healthcare professionals to ensure that care and support was well coordinated.

People received sufficient nutritional support and their nutritional and dietary needs and preferences were known by staff and recorded.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care and support was provided in a caring and a patient way.

A complaints procedure was in place and complaints had been responded to, to the satisfaction of the complainant. People felt able to raise concerns with the staff at any time.

The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to monitor the quality and safety of people’s care. People and their relatives were able to make suggestions in relation to the support and care provided.

30 August 2013

During a routine inspection

The agency was not providing domiciliary care packages to people at the time of our inspection visit on 30 August 2013. However, the provider confirmed that they were re-developing their domiciliary care services over the next few months and would update the Commission accordingly.

The provider had ensured that there was information available for staff regarding reporting safeguarding to the local authority safeguarding teams. Staff had received safeguarding training and information about how to report any incidents of abuse.

There were on-going training sessions in place to ensure that staff could safely deliver care and support to people and staff received supervision to provide them with on-going support.

The agency had an effective system to deal with concerns and complaints that were raised by people using the service. People using the service regularly had access to the office staff to resolve any concerns that they have.

The provider had an effective quality assurance procedure to ensure that the effectiveness of the service was regularly monitored

6 June 2012

During a routine inspection

People who received services from the agency told us that the carers were knowledgeable and skilled in carrying out required care and support tasks. They also said that the management staff at the agency efficiently dealt with any issues or concerns. A relative of a person receiving support from the agency was positive and complimentary about the care that had been provided to their relative.

21 July 2011

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak with people who were receiving care from the agency, however we did observe interactions between care staff and people using the service and noted that staff were sensitive and considerate in their approach to people. Staff communicated and interacted with people in a relaxed and friendly manner, and the support provided by staff was appropriate.