• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Q Care - Hereford

2 Barn Conversion, Howton Farm, Howton, Herefordshire, HR2 0BG 0845 408 4305

Provided and run by:
Q Care Limited

All Inspections

18 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Most people we spoke with were pleased with the care provided by Q Care. They confirmed that the care workers showed them respect and protected their dignity. People told us they felt safe with their care workers. People made comments such as, "Oh yes very safe, they're very good, fantastic", "They're very respectful I've got no concerns, I can't fault them" and, "They're very good, I can't fault them, I'm very satisfied with them"

People told us that the service was usually reliable. A few people told us that they were not always told if their care worker was going to be late. Some people said that getting used to new care workers could be difficult. The provider had systems in place to try to limit how often these things happened.

The service had good arrangements to help them make sure they recruited suitable staff to work for them.

The service had developed the ways it monitored the quality of the service to make sure that it was effective and well led. People who used the service and the staff were consulted for their views about how the service operated.

26 June 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did this inspection to check what improvements had been made by Q Care since we did our last inspection on 21 November 2011. Following that inspection Q Care sent us an action plan which set out how they would make the changes that were needed. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all six areas where we had concerns in November.

We spent a day at the Q Care office where we spoke with the provider's representative, the registered manager and three of the office based staff. We also spoke by telephone with four people who used the service, two relatives and three care workers.

People we spoke with said that their care needs were being met by their carers. They told us that staff gave them the care and support that they needed and that had been agreed. People said that they felt safe and that their care workers were polite and respectful towards them. One relative replied 'they are lovely, honestly I can't fault them. They just get on with their jobs, they are all very nice' and a person who received care said they were polite and added 'they help me, we have a chat, it's very nice'.

The staff we spoke to were also generally positive and confirmed that the overall service provided by the agency had improved. They described how much they enjoyed their work and showed that they recognised the importance of providing a reliable and caring service. The staff we spoke with were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns about a person's welfare and knew how to do this.

The registered manager and the provider's representative acknowledged that although the service had improved they needed to make sure they developed this further in the future.

21 November 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did this review to check what improvements Q Care had made following our previous review of the service in August 2011. We spoke with eight people who use the service and family members of two other people. One person sent us information on our website. We also spoke with four staff on the telephone and with the registered manager, a care co-ordinator and locality manager at the office.

People who used the service and their families were pleased with the care they receive from the care workers who visit them. One person told us they have a fairly small group of regular carers and that they were all 'very kind and helpful'. We asked if the care workers were polite and made the person feel safe; they told us, 'Oh yes, I can only speak for the ones that come to me but I am very happy with mine'. Another person told us they had been able to develop a 'rapport' with their small team of care workers. One person was concerned about their relative having too many carers and that there had been an occasion when a care worker did not arrive.

One person who uses the service and two of the staff we spoke with mentioned some shortcomings in communication with the office both during and outside office hours. This did not appear to be such a widespread concern as in August indicating some improvement in communication.

The care workers we spoke to were all enthusiastic about their work and considered that they provided people with good care. Some told us that care records were not always up to date or correct and one said that they visited some people where they had not seen any care records. When we checked care records kept at the Q Care office we found that progress in updating these had been limited. One relative told us they had needed to provide guidance to new carers who had not visited their relative before.

The arrangements for managing people's medication did not provide effective safeguards for checking problems. The agency's checks of medication records did not identify any concerns but we found matters which should have been followed up to make sure people were receiving their medication correctly. At our previous inspection we were concerned that medication training provided to staff was not adequate. During this visit we were told that staff had subsequently received medication training from an external company.

Improvements had been made in relation to adult safeguarding and the registered manager had attended a safeguarding course aimed at managers run by the local authority. The service had begun to recognise and report concerns about people's welfare to be looked into under the multi-agency safeguarding process.

At our previous inspection we were concerned about the quality and effectiveness of staff training. The registered manager told us that training is now being provided by training managers from the organisation's head office or external training providers. Some staff we spoke to had some concerns about the thoroughness of training they had done. The provider assured us that staff training arrangements were being improved.

The organisation's arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service had not been effective. We could not be confident that the registered manager and the provider had been monitoring the improvements that were needed or providing effective leadership to bring these changes about.

Following our inspection we arranged a meeting with the nominated individual for Q Care. They acknowledged that additional management time was needed to support the registered manager in making the necessary improvements at Q Care. They assured us that this support would be provided and that they would be taking an active role in this. They and the registered manager assured us that they were committed to improving the service they provide and making sure that this is supported by effective management. We took these assurances into account in deciding that we would not take enforcement action. We have made compliance actions and emphasised to the provider that it is essential that they provide us with a robust action plan.

16 August 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

As part of this review we spoke by telephone with three people who used Q Care, and with the families of three other people. We also spoke with four staff on the telephone and with the manager, two locality officers and a care co-ordinator at the office. We took into account information we have gained through the local adult safeguarding arrangements, including discussions with adult social care managers in the county.

People who use the service and relatives were pleased with the direct care from the care workers. People described them as friendly and respectful. One person said that their relative has two main carers and that 'Nothing is too much trouble for them'. Another relative described the care workers who provided care for their family member as 'Absolutely perfect'.

People who use the service, relatives, care workers and local authority staff told us that the agency could improve their communication. People we spoke with gave us some examples which included the office phone not being answered and a family who felt they were not kept informed about a problem which developed over a period of time. One person who used the service told us that the staff at the office are 'not bothered'. Care workers we spoke to told us that during the last year they felt the office support had declined and there was a lack of organisation which had frustrated them.

Care workers we spoke to said they enjoyed their work and visiting the people they provided care to. Some told us that care plans had not been updated when peoples' needs had changed. This reflected what we found when we checked the care records at Q Care's office.

We found that the arrangements for managing people's medicines did not show what, if any action they took when a concern was noted. Concerns about a person's medicines reported by care workers were not addressed by senior staff, which delayed better arrangements being made for the person. Staff training in medicines was being done by internal staff at the agency and we are concerned that the trainers' own training was not adequate.

Arrangements for adult safeguarding concerns were disorganised and senior staff could not find current procedures or correctly explain the processes for dealing with suspected abuse.

Staff training records showed that courses were generally arranged internally. We found that some essential courses were overdue for renewal or had been facilitated by trainers who were not suitably trained or qualified to provide the training. The training for two staff who provided moving and handling training and did risk assessments for people had expired in May 2010.

Although people were happy with the staff they saw each day we found no evidence that Q Care's corporate systems for monitoring quality and improving standards are effective.