Archived: Carradice Care Ltd

Updated 3 September 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit. This was to ensure that the office would be open when we visited.

As part of our inspection we spoke with the local authority about information they held about Carradice Care Limited. We also looked at information we held about the provider to see if we had received any concerns or compliments about them. We reviewed information of statutory notifications we had received from the provider. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We used this information to help us plan our inspection of the agency.

The Inspection activity started on 16 May 2018 and ended on 21 May 2018. It included telephone interviews with people who used the service, their relatives and staff members. We visited the office location on 21 May 2018, to see the registered manager and the provider to review care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection team comprised of two inspectors and one Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

At this inspection we spoke with nine relatives who spoke on behalf of people who used the service. We spoke with two people who used the service, four care staff, the registered manager and the registered provider. We looked at five care records, risk assessments and records relating to quality audits.

Updated 3 September 2019

This inspection was announced and took place on 21 May 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. At the time of the inspection 33 people were using the service.

The agency had a registered manager who was present on the day of our inspection visit. 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 in August 2016, the provider was in breach of regulation 16, receiving and acting on complaints and regulation 17, Good governance. We found that the provider did not investigate or respond to complaints. The governance was ineffective to assess, monitor and to drive improvements.

At this inspection we found that the provider had not taken sufficient action to comply with these regulations and people continued to be at risk of not receiving a safe and effective service. We found a further breach of regulation 18, Staffing. The registered provider did not ensure that all staff had the necessary skills and competence to assist people safely with their care.

The management of people’s medicines was not safe to ensure they received their medicines as directed by the prescriber. People were placed at risk of harm because staff did not always have access to risk assessments that provided accurate information. People were not always protected from the risk of potential abuse. Staff’s failure to wear their uniform and carry identification at all times, placed people at risk of allowing unauthorised persons into their home. People were at risk of avoidable infections because staff did not always wash their hands or use personal, protective equipment. Accidents were not managed effectively to reduce the risk of it happening again. Insufficient staffing levels meant calls were frequently late.

Staff did not have access to relevant training to ensure they had the skills to care and support people safely. Staff were not always supported in their role to ensure they provided an effective service. Staff’s lack of understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 placed people at risk of their human rights not being respected.

People could not be confident their right to privacy and dignity would be respected by all staff. Staff were not always attentive to people’s needs and they did not always have access to relevant information about people’s care and support requirements. People’s complaints were not always listened to, taken seriously or acted on. During the assessment of people’s needs equality, diversity and human rights were not explored. People were involved in the assessment of their care needs.

Where needed people were provided with support to eat and drink sufficient amounts. People who used the service did not require support to access relevant healthcare services.

At the time of the inspection there was no one who used the service receiving end of life care.