• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Way Ahead Care - Somerset

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Accuro House, 18 Belvedere Road, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 1BW (01823) 321123

Provided and run by:
Way Ahead Community Services Ltd

All Inspections

16 June 2015 and 22 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was announced and took place on 16 and 22 June 2015.

Way Ahead Care-Somerset provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes in the Taunton area. At the time of the inspection they were providing a personal care service to 154 people.

There was no registered manager in post. The previous registered manager had left in January 2015. Following their resignation the service had been managed by the nominated individual who was applying to be the registered manager with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

Before this inspection we had received concerns from two relatives. Part of their concerns was the lack of detail recorded by care workers in people’s care plans. When we looked at care plans in the office and in people’s homes we found they included very clear guidance for staff on the care needs and preferences of the people they cared for. However each care need was given a code, for example, assist to wash and dress could have a code of C3. The care worker would record the code rather than write at any length how the person had been and what care they had required. This practice placed people at risk of unsafe and inappropriate care and treatment; and did not reflect a person centred approach to care. It also meant other staff or family members could not see if a person had refused care or had specific issues that day.

There were quality assurance systems to monitor care and plans for on-going improvements. However they had failed to identify the lack of detail being written in care plans by care workers. This meant some issues had failed to be communicated to other care workers and family. The manager had carried out an investigation into the concerns and had introduced a new way of recording information in care plans. Way Ahead Care acknowledged that a change was required to the way in which care workers recorded what had occurred during their visits. It was identified that the current system needed to be reviewed and consideration given to a more person centred approach. Some care plans showed there had been a change in the way staff were recording their visits but this was not consistent throughout the agency at the time of the inspection.

People told us they felt safe receiving care from the agency, one person said “Yes I feel safe and if I didn’t I would say something.” A relative said, “I am confident my [relative] is looked after in a safe way.” Staff had received training in understanding and recognising abuse. They were able to tell us about the signs they would look for and who they would talk to if they had concerns. All the staff spoken with said they were confident that any concerns they raised would be taken seriously and reported to the correct people. The manager had worked in partnership with the Somerset safeguarding team to look into concerns raised. The manager had also alerted Somerset when they had concerns about a person’s safety.

People were protected from harm and unsuitable staff as the agency followed robust procedures when recruiting new staff. New staff didn’t work with people until they had completed their induction training and worked supervised with senior care workers until it was agreed they were competent to work alone.

People’s care needs were recorded and reviewed regularly with senior staff and the person receiving the care. Care workers had comprehensive information and guidance to deliver consistent care the way people preferred. People told us they were cared for by staff who knew what their care needs and preferences were. One person said, “They know me really well, I have a team of girls that I know and they know what I like and how I like it.” A relative said, “They know how my [relative] likes to be looked after and they have had the training they need as they have complex needs.” Staff members told us they had good guidance in care plans but they always asked the person how they would prefer things done. However one person who insisted they liked to be independent said nobody really understood them.

The agency had a complaints policy and procedure that was included in people’s care plans in large print. People said they were aware of the procedure and had numbers they could ring. People and staff spoken with said they felt confident they could raise concerns with the manager and senior staff. Records showed the agency responded to concerns and complaints and learnt from the issues raised.

There were systems in place to monitor the care provided and people’s experiences. A regular survey was carried out asking people, their relatives, staff and service commissioners about the service provided by the agency. Suggestions for change were listened to and actions taken to improve the service provided.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

2 September 2014

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out by a lead inspector and two experts by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The experts by experience telephoned 42 people who use the service. They managed to speak with 25 people and three relatives of people who use the service.

We were informed there were 242 people using this service at the time of our inspection. We sent questionnaires about people's experience of the service to 61 people. Each person received an additional questionnaire to give to a relative, friend or advocate. A total of 35 questionnaires were returned. During the inspection we spoke with seven care staff, a care coordinator, the care manager for the service, and three of the Agency's directors.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service caring?

Almost everyone we contacted said they received a very caring service. They said care staff were kind, friendly and helpful. One person said 'They are absolute angels they really are'. Another person said 'All my Carer's are excellent they are like friends'. A third person said 'They are brilliant, bright cheerful girls. I have no problems whatsoever with them'.

People told us the care workers always treated them with respect and helped them to be as independent as they could be. No one had experienced any form of discrimination.

Is the service responsive?

Overall we found the service was responsive to people's needs and wishes. All but one person we contacted said they had been involved in the assessment of their needs and the service delivered what had been agreed with them. One person who used the service said 'Yes, they put a care plan together for me. My opinions were considered when it was written'. Another person told us 'I am completely satisfied with my care thank you'.

The great majority of people told us calls were usually on time and they were informed which care worker to expect. One person told us 'I have regular carers unless they are on holiday or sickness. They are very good timekeepers'. Another person said 'Their timekeeping is good and they ring me if they are running late'.

We received some mixed comments about the responsiveness of the Agency's office staff. Some people complained they were not always informed about changes to the rotas and their telephone messages were not always returned.

We were told care plans were reviewed whenever people's needs changed and everyone's care plan was reviewed at least annually. If people raised any concerns about their care a senior member of the care staff team visited them to discuss the issues.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe when care staff visited. One person said 'I have had no worries'. Another person said 'I have the office number. If I had any concerns I would speak to them'.

The provider carried out appropriate staff recruitment practices and other checks which helped protect people from the risk of abuse. Care staff told us they received annual refresher training in safeguarding of vulnerable adults. They understood what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns.

One of the directors said they would only agree to care packages which they assessed were safe. They provided operational support to assist care staff where special equipment was needed or people had complex care needs.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Care staff told us they were instructed to call the emergency services, use the individual's personal Piper Line alarm, or call the Agency's office as appropriate to the circumstances. Care plans included risk assessments and guidance for staff to follow in an emergency.

Is the service effective?

The provider was effective in meeting the needs of the great majority of people who use the service. Most of the people who responded to our questionnaires about the service rated their overall care as 'good' or 'excellent'.

People we spoke with on the telephone said they had confidence in the skills and experience of the care staff. One person said 'The carer's are excellent and I feel very confident with them all'. Another person said 'They seem very well trained, smiley and polite'. A third person said 'They are exceptional. I have confidence and trust in my carers'. Only a few people expressed any reservations about their care workers experience and skills.

The provider's recruitment and selection processes helped ensure staff with the right skills and attitudes were employed by the service. Care staff received in-house training and regular updates to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to care for people effectively.

Is the service well led?

A new care manager for the service had recently been appointed due to a change in the way the provider registered its services with the Care Quality Commission. At the time of our inspection the care manager was in the process of applying to become the Registered Manager for the service.

The provider had a clear management structure in place with clear lines of reporting and accountability. The care workers reported to senior care staff who reported to the care manager. The provider's directors were based in the Agency's office and had a 'hands on' role with designated responsibility for particular aspects of the service.

Care staff we spoke with told us the provider was a good employer. One care worker said 'I can't fault them. They are a good employer and the manager is lovely'. Another care worker said 'They have always been good with me'. A third care worker said 'The management team are approachable and supportive. We usually have staff meetings once a month and one of the directors attends'.

The provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of service that people received. The great majority of responses to our questionnaires about the service indicated high levels of satisfaction with the service overall.

We found complaints were responded to, mostly to the satisfaction of the person making the complaint. Learning from complaints and other incidents was disseminated through team meetings, internal care notes to staff, and individual discussions. If required, policies and procedures were reviewed and additional training provided.

13 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Since 2010 Way Ahead had two registered services in Taunton. Way Ahead Supported Living was based at an office on the outskirts of Taunton. Way Ahead Domiciliary Care Services was based in large offices in the town centre.

In April 2011 the provider moved the supported living service offices into the domiciliary care building. The provider intended to keep the services as two locations both providing the regulated activity personal care. However due to an administrative error the name of the manager of the supported living service appears on this report.

We are currently correcting the registration status of the services. Once the registration anomaly has been corrected we will inspect the supported living service and publish a separate report.

This was an inspection of the domiciliary care service and the supported living service was not reviewed on this occasion.

Way Ahead was providing care to approximately 194 people in their homes. We gathered the views of people who used the service by visiting them and by telephoning them. We contacted 38 people and were able to speak with 32. The people we visited were very happy with the support provided by the carers. One person said 'I am very happy with the service. I have no problems at all.' We also heard 'They are more than polite. They do things as I want them doing. I just mention something and they will oblige.'

People praised their regular staff. One person said 'They are jolly good. They have got to know me. X even cuts the toast the way I like it.' Another person said of their regular carer 'She notices things before I do. She tells me what is happening before I know it.'

When we telephoned people they also told us that they were satisfied with the care they received. 14 people told us that they had some concerns about the service. They told us they often did not know what time they would be visited and they did not know which carer would be arriving.

Staff told us they felt supported and were trained to meet people's needs safely. The agency had systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. We saw ways in which improvements had been made to the service in response to events that had occurred. For example we saw a system had been developed to ensure people who were discharged from hospital were safe to return home.

18 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out a themed inspection looking at domiciliary care services. We asked people through telephone calls and visits to tell us what it was like to receive services from this home care agency with particular regard to how people's dignity was upheld and how they made choices about their care.

We spoke with the management team and with care workers.

People we spoke with gave positive feedback about the service. Care staff respected their choices about the way that care was delivered. They all said that they felt safe using this service and knew what to do if they had any concerns.

They confirmed that the staff supported and encouraged them to maintain as much independence as possible. They were confident that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

One person told us that when their care had been set up 'staff went through everything and checked it was O.K.' They said that staff did 'very well'. ' Another person told us about 'the partnership' between themselves and the carers that enabled them to stay independent.

At the time of our inspection a prospective registered manager had been employed at Way Ahead since August 2012. The organisation had informed us that the previous registered manager had left employment on 4th November 2011. The previous manager had not deregistered with CQC at the time of the inspection, therefore their name still remains on any reports until such time that this information is received.