• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Bradgate Homecare Limited

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

12A Fir Tree Lane, Groby, Leicestershire, LE6 0FH (0116) 287 7767

Provided and run by:
Bradgate Homecare Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

19 and 20 November and 2 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 19 and 20 November. We returned on 2 December 2015. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to speak with. At the last inspection in September 2014 we found the provider had not met the regulation relating to management of medicines. At this inspection we found the provider had not made the required improvements. We found two 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 the report.

The service provided care and support to adults with a variety of needs living in their own homes. This included people living with dementia, older people, people with sensory impairments and physical disabilities. At the time of inspection there were 124 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

People told us that they did not always feel safe when staff supported them. They told us that this depended upon which staff member was supporting them.

People did not receive their medicines safely. Records did not contain important information about the medicines that people were taking and care plans did not show what support people needed with their medicines this meant that there was a risk that people might not receive the medicines they needed as prescribed by their doctor and there had been occasions when this had happened.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner in areas such as moving and handling, nutrition and health and safety. The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in these areas.

Staff told us that they sought people’s consent prior to providing their care. We saw that there were a number of consent forms in place that the service used. Where people were believed to not have the capacity to consent to their care and treatment there was no record of how the care provided had been agreed as required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Care workers were supported through training to be able to meet the care needs of people they supported. They undertook an induction programme when they started work at the service.

People told us that some staff were caring and that some staff made them feel uncomfortable. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to promote people’s dignity.

When people started to use the service a care plan was developed that included details about their care needs and how to meet those needs. Information about people’s likes dislikes and preferences were included so staff had all of the relevant information, apart from that relating to medicines, to meet people’s needs.

At times care workers did not arrive on time for homecare visits. People felt that they were sometimes rushed by care workers. They told us that the care workers did not always stay for the scheduled period of time.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint. The service had a complaints procedure. The service had not recognised concerns that people raised as possible complaints.

People told us that they completed a questionnaire to provide feedback on the service. They told us that they did not get any feedback from this questionnaire.

Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of care and support provided. These had not been updated regularly and did not reflect all of the checks that had taken place.

The service had a clear management structure in place. Staff told us that they found the management approachable and felt that they were listened to.

We found two 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 the report.

16, 17 September 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

A pharmacy inspector carried out this inspection. On this inspection we looked at the arrangements in place for the management of medicines and assessed whether this was being managed safely at the service.

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

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

We spoke with five people who used the service about the level of support with medicines that people received from the staff. People told us 'They are very good' and 'Sometimes the staff ask me if I have had my medicines. They put it [medication patch] on after I have a shower every day. When I have a regular carer it's very good. [She] is very efficient and knows what to do. But in the weekend we don't know who is coming, it's not so good'. A third person said, 'I am visited every day, they witness that I take the pills. In the afternoon they set up my pills to take later."

People were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place for the safe administration and recording of medicines.