• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Homebased Care (UK) Ltd - Coventry

459 Foleshill Road, Coventry, West Midlands, CV6 5AQ (024) 7663 8210

Provided and run by:
Homebased Care (UK) Limited

All Inspections

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our visit the agency supported approximately 44 people and employed 37 care workers. We spoke with the manager, a care co-ordinator and two care workers during our visit. We also spoke with four people who used the service and three relatives to find out their views about West Midlands Home Based Care.

People who used the service told us their care and support needs had been agreed with them when the service started. People who were unable to make their own decisions had a family member who acted on their behalf.

We saw peoples care needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed to make sure people received the care they required. Risks associated with people's care had been identified and were managed appropriately by the service. The care plans we looked at provided staff with sufficient information about the care and support people required to meet their needs and maintain their safety.

We found there was a safe procedure for assisting people with medication and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People we spoke with said their care workers were friendly and polite. We were told that consistency of care workers had improved recently. One person told us, 'In the last few months I've had regular care workers. I prefer this; you get to know each other and build up a relationship.' We were satisfied care workers had been recruited safely and had the necessary skills and experience to work with people using the service.

Records showed the agency had systems in place to monitor the care provided. Everyone we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. People said, 'Yes they are all lovely. My main carer is really great she makes me laugh which is a good way to start the day.'

We looked at how complaints were managed. We found people's concerns were listened to and acted on in a timely manner.

11 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspection of West Midlands Homebased Care on 31 August 2012 we found the service was non compliant with regulations relating to people's care and welfare and the way the provider monitored the quality of the service. We issued compliance actions to the provider. We also asked the provider to send a report to us explaining what they had done to improve these areas.

We received a report from the provider in October 2012. The report told us what the provider was doing to become compliant and the dates the improvements would be completed.

We re-visited the agency on 11 February 2013 to see what improvement the provider had made. We did not talk with people who used the service during this follow up visit. Peoples experience of the service can be found in the report dated 31 August 2012.

We looked at how calls were scheduled to people and how the provider made sure people received their care at the allocated time. We also looked at the processes to gain peoples views and opinions of the service. We found that the provider had made improvements to the processes for scheduling calls and allocating staff to people who used the service. We also found that the processes for assessing and monitoring processes of the agency had improved. We found the provider was compliant in the outcome areas we assessed.

31 August 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were involved in decisions made about their care and had been involved in care plan reviews. Relatives we spoke with told us they were kept informed and involved in the care support of their relative.

We asked people if they were satisfied with the service they received. One person told us that her morning carer is 'absolutely brilliant', and another said they had a 'fantastic' member of staff. Other people said the carers they had were 'ok'.

We saw that plans contained detailed information for staff about the individual support people required. Plans also included a process for assessing and managing risks associated with peoples care, for example people's mobility, skin viability and medication. People said they had a copy of the care plan in their home.

People told us that staff did not read the care plan. One person said that although staff knew what to do this was because other carers or the family had told them not because they looked at the care plan. We asked people if their carers arrived around the same time each day. Two people said that carers did arrive around the expected time but other people told us, 'No, times can be erratic. They don't always let me now if they are going to be late, but they always turn up.' We asked people if they had consistent carers'. People said, 'I have the same carer most mornings but anyone can turn up for the other calls'. Another said 'I get different carers', more consistency would be nice'. One person said that their relative looks 'very smart when he is washed and changed' and although they had experienced a number of care workers their relative always felt 'safe' with them.

We asked people if carer's stayed long enough to do everything they needed and if they take their time and do not rush. One person said, "They do tend to rush around but they never rush when they are assisting me with personal care'. People told us that although carer's carry out personal care in a way that they prefer other tasks, for example domestic tasks, were not being completed to their satisfaction. We found that staff were not always recording that they had completed all the tasks recorded in the care plan.

Staff we spoke with said they had completed safeguarding training and knew what to do to keep people safe from harm. People told us that if they had raised a concern the agency did it's best to deal with the concern and resolve it.

The agency had procedures in place for monitoring the service they provide but we found that these could be more robust. People we spoke with had several concerns about parts of the service they received. These concerns had not been identified by the agency.