You are here

Caterham Domiciliary Care Agency Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 1 November 2013
Date of Publication: 21 December 2013
Inspection Report published 21 December 2013 PDF | 88.46 KB


Inspection carried out on 1 November 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection Caterham Domiciliary Care Agency was providing an active service to 41 people.

We spoke with the provider, registered manager, assistant manager, administrative staff , five care staff, three relatives of people who used the service and seven people who received care from the service.

People we spoke with all made very positive comments about the staff and care they provided and said the staff were caring and treated them well. People also said that they were usually supported on time and by staff familiar to them. They had no complaints but knew how to make one if they needed to.

One relative of a person who used the service told us they had tried other agencies before and they had cut time short, but this one never does. They said the staff never made their relative feel rushed and would even stay longer if there is a need.

All of the relatives and people receiving a service we spoke to told us they had received quality questionnaires but had not yet seen any feedback from the agency as to what quality issues had arisen from the questionnaires and what the organisation was going to do about them to improve quality.

Staff told us that travelling time between visits, being able to stay longer if needed, reliable company cars being provided for staff, as well as the way staff felt highly supported, all contributed to timekeeping, meeting call times and general reliability of visits.

We found that before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent but where people did not have capacity the provider did not act in accordance within legal requirements.

We saw people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights but there were no written procedures in place to plan for any foreseeable emergencies. This meant that if an emergency situation did occur there would be no procedures known to staff to mitigate the risks that may arise and facilitate continuation of safe appropriate care.

We noted that people who used the service were not cared for and supported by staff who had appropriate checks undertaken before they began work, to ensure they were suitable to work with the people the service supports.

We found that although the health and safety of people was reviewed and audited, there was no quality assurance system in place to record the findings of quality questionnaires, analyse the results, identify and record action to improve quality and feed back to the people who use the service, and the provider did not always protect people as they did not complete follow up action required following disciplinary hearings.