Archived: Southgate Beaumont DCA

CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing. Additionally, not everyone using Southgate Beaumont DCA receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection there were two people using this service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People using the service spoke positively about it, telling us they were “very satisfied” and that “everything’s alright.” They said they would recommend it to friends and family.

The service ensured that people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. This included providing people with the same capable staff so that trusting relationships developed. The service also had ways of promoting social inclusion.

The service supported people to express their views wherever possible and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support. Individualised care plans were in place, and so people received care which was responsive to their needs. Within these processes, safety assessments took place, although records of taking action as a result of these were not clear.

The service had processes that aimed to safeguard people from abuse, and ensure staff recruitment procedures kept people safe. There were also systems to prevent the spread of infection, and to learn lessons and make improvements when things went wrong.

The service made sure staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support, and worked to promote people's human rights. There were good support structures for staff.

The service generally assessed people’s needs and preferences so that care and support was delivered in line with standards to achieve effective outcomes. However, we have recommended reviewing how this works for anyone returning to the service following a period in hospital.

Where part of their care package, people were supported to maintain good health and nutrition, and access appropriate healthcare services.

Systems at the service enabled sustainability and supported continuous learning and improvement. This included expanding the scope of what this service could safely and effectively provide people with, to better meet wider care needs.

Southgate Beaumont DCA is a domiciliary care service for people who receive extra care in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were three people who received personal care from the agency. People lived in flats, which were adjoined with a care home that was also managed by the provider.

An inspection on 12 March 2014 found the service was compliant and the regulations were met.

The service had 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 service is run.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. People told us they were happy with the support received from the service. Staff member knew how to report alleged abuse and were able to describe the different types of abuse. Staff knew how to ‘whistleblow’. Whistleblowing is when a worker reports wrongdoing at work to their employer or someone in authority in the public interests.

Risk assessments were recorded and plans were in place to minimise risks. We found one person who had a specific health condition that required a balanced nutritious diet. A risk assessment on nutrition was not completed to demonstrate the appropriate management of this risk. The registered manager sent us the completed risk assessment after the inspection.

People were supported by suitably qualified and experienced staff. Recruitment and selection procedures were in place and being followed. Checks had been undertaken to ensure staff were suitable for the role. Staff members were suitably trained to carry out their duties and knew their responsibilities to keep people safe and meet people’s needs.

Staff received regular one to one supervisions and had appraisals. Staff told us they were supported by their manager.

People who used the service were supported to plan their support and they received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. People were involved in the planning of their care and the care plan was then signed by people to confirm they were happy with the care and support listed on the care plan. Care plans were regularly reviewed.

Questionnaires were completed by people about the service, which we saw were positive. We were told by the registered manager that spot checks were undertaken by management, this was confirmed by staff. However, we did not see detailed documentary evidence to support this. The registered manager assured us that systems will be in place to record spot checks and its findings.

People told us they did their own weekly shopping and were able to buy ingredients to prepare their meals. People who used the service received their meals from the service were given choices and enjoyed the food that was provided.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and told us permission was always sought when providing support. People confirmed staff asked for consent.

There was a formal complaints procedure with response times. People were aware of how to make complaints and staff knew how to respond to complaints in accordance with the service’s complaint policy.

People enjoyed a number of activities such playing games, singing and going outside that contributed to their physical and emotional wellbeing.

At this inspection we found that that there was one person using the service. Staff were aware of the persons needs and capacity. The person had been involved in their care plan and records had been recently reviewed and updated. The person told us 'staff ask for my permission before giving care.'

Suitable arrangements had been made to protect people where their care or treatment was shared or transferred to others. Staff told us that people's key information was shared with and would be transferred to other services where necessary. Records included people's next of kin, medication, a summary of people's personal information, their mobility, capacity and communication needs. Visits from external professionals were logged by care staff.

At this inspection we found that matters from our previous inspection had been dealt with. People's needs were assessed and most care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with most aspects of the person's care plan. One person told us 'staff are very capable'. Staff were appropriately supported by the provider and manager to deliver care and treatment to people safely and to an appropriate standard.

Suitable arrangements were not in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with the consent of people or their representatives or in people's best interests.

There was continuity of care between staff. However the provider was not sharing appropriate information where responsibility was shared or transferred to others.

People who use the service and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment. Records showed that quality audits had been made.