Archived: Fairhope

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector over the course of three different days. Time was spent in the office, visiting people in their homes and talking with care workers. In total we visited three people in their homes and met with four relatives. We also spoke with two care workers whilst they were at the office and briefly with two carers in one of the home's we visited.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments had been carried out both with regard to people's care needs, use of special equipment, such as hoists, and to any environmental hazards that may be present. Those staff whom we spoke with were aware of people's needs and how to ensure that they were met safely.

Staff personnel records contained all of the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This meant that the agency could demonstrate that the care workers they employed were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support the people they were caring for.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs were well met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's needs, likes and dislikes and knew them well. One relative told us "they have been very thorough in finding out all about [person] and making sure that they keep up to date with any changes".

Is the service caring?

Throughout our inspection we observed that staff were kind and caring and received only positive comments from all of the people we spoke with about the agency. One person told us "I have been really impressed. They are all so patient and the office are also very responsive".

Is the service responsive?

We found that people's needs had been assessed before the package of care was started to ensure that they could meet their needs. Once the service had started, people's needs were regularly reviewed and any changes were responded to as necessary either by consultations with social workers, changes to the way their care was provided or provision of equipment.

People confirmed that staff always took care to protect their privacy when providing personal care and encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible even if this took longer.

Is the service well-led?

The agency had a registered manager with many years experience. The manager told us that she operates an 'open door' policy and care workers could contact her whenever they needed to. There was also always a manager or senior member of staff on duty and available to staff outside of office hours. Care workers that we spoke with all confirmed that they could, and did, contact the office for help and guidance.

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and staff had received training to ensure that they could meet people's needs.

The manager had taken the necessary steps to improve the service following our last inspection in November 2013.

During this inspection we met with four people who used the service and spoke to four family members of people who used the service. People told us that care workers were always kind, helpful and cheerful. One person told us "I'm well looked after and we have lots of laughter. All the girls keep very jolly". Another person told us "I find all the girls very helpful indeed. They do everything I want". People also told us that care workers stayed for the amount of time they needed and always checked if any other help was required before they left.

We found shortfalls in the way people's care was assessed, monitored and delivered. People's needs were not fully assessed, and planned for. We also found shortfalls in the way that medicines were managed for people. This placed people at risk of unsafe care.

We also found that the agency did not have suitable supervision systems in place. This meant that care workers may not have had the required training to provide care and that they may not have received suitable support whilst carrying out their role.

The agency had no systematic approach to the monitoring of the quality of service provided to people who used the service.

During this inspection we visited three people in their own homes and talked to them and their relatives about the care they received from Fairhope. All of the people and their relatives we spoke with told us they were very happy with the service provided.

People told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and provided all the help and care they needed. They told us the staff completed their personal care in a friendly and respectful manner.

Fairhope followed thorough processes and procedures when new staff were recruited. This meant that people were protected from harm.

Medicines were handled appropriately.

The provider did not have a robust quality assurance system in place to ensure standards were maintained.