Archived: Choice 1

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, talking with people who use services, speaking with the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People reported to us that their visits from care workers had been missed and people had been left at risk.

Care and risk assessment documentation did not always reflect people’s current needs.

Systems were not in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and serious incidents, complaints, concerns and investigations. This was because there was no evidence of follow up action or outcomes to investigations.

Staff recruitment practice was not safe and thorough. People were employed without the proper checks and assessments having taken place to make sure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them by their social worker. However, where people who had very complex needs, we found there was very little information to guide staff about how to meet these needs safely. We also found for some people that care staff turned up late for their calls or not at all which meant the service was not being delivered and therefore not effective.

Is the service caring?

People were supported mostly by kind staff. People told us “They are alright" and "They are very nice." One person said, "I am quite happy." One relative told us, “They get the best out of my mother.”

Is the service responsive?

The agency did not have an effective complaints procedure. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with and found people’s complaints had not been documented and no responses had been provided. People could therefore not be assured that their complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

We found where people had complained the service had not improved.

Is the service well-led?

The service was not adhering to a quality assurance system and records we looked at showed shortfalls were not addressed.

There were gaps in key areas of the agency’s performance which should have been monitored and in some areas checks of how the service was performing did not take place at all. This did not help to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We found records could not always be promptly located and both a paper and computerised system were in operation, which caused confusion. Some essential records were incomplete such as people’s care records and staff recruitment records.