You are here

Turkish Cypriot Community Association Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

This inspection took place on 27 and 28 June 2018 and was announced. We informed the provider 48 hours in advance of our visit that we would be inspecting. This was to ensure there was somebody at the location to facilitate our inspection. The service’s last comprehensive inspection was on 12 and 17 July 2017, where we found the service to be in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We served the provider with Warning Notices where we specified actions that the provider was required to take. At our focused inspection on 9 November 2017, we found that the provider was still in breach in regard to safe care and treatment and good governance.

Following the last inspection, we met with the provider to confirm what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe and Well-led to at least good. At the inspection on 27 and 28 June 2018, we found that the provider had made improvements.

Turkish Cypriot Community Association is a domiciliary care service that provides personal care to older people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Not everyone using Turkish Cypriot Community Association receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, the service was providing personal care to 87 people with physical disabilities and older people in their own homes.

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 and their relatives told us staff were reliable and felt safe with them. Staff were provided with information on risks to people’s healthcare needs and how to minimise those risks to ensure their and people’s safety. The provider employed suitable and sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs safely. People were supported with their medicines needs by staff who were trained in medication administration. Staff followed appropriate infection control procedures to prevent cross contamination and avoid risk of spread of infection. The provider maintained appropriate accidents and incidents records and shared learning outcomes with the staff team to minimise future occurrences.

The provider assessed people’s needs at the time of referral and informed staff on how to provide individualised care. Staff were provided with sufficient induction, regular training and supervision to meet people’s needs effectively. People were happy with the nutrition and hydration support. The provider supported people where requested to access healthcare services to maintain good health. People told us staff asked them before supporting them and staff knew people’s right to choose and encouraged them make decisions.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff were trained in equality and diversity, and treated people as individuals. People were supported to remain independent and their confidentiality was maintained. The provider delivered a cultural specific service and ensured staff were matched with people with similar language and cultural backgrounds. People were supported by the same staff team that ensured continuity of care.

Staff knew people’s likes, dislikes and background history. People told us they received personalised care. The provider had updated people’s care plans to make them more person-centred. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. People were supported with end of life care needs but these were not always clearly reflected in their care

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe with staff. Risks to people were identified, assessed and measures were put in place to mitigate the risks. Staff knew how to safeguard people against avoidable harm and abuse.

People told us staff arrived on time and were satisfied with the timekeeping. Staff were trained in medication and people told us they were happy with the medicines support.

The provider had processes to record and learn from accidents and incidents. Staff delivered care in line with the provider�s infection control procedures.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was effective.

The provider assessed people's needs before they started delivering care. People told us their individual healthcare needs were met by staff who received regular training and supervision.

People's nutrition and hydration needs were met. Staff supported people to make healthcare appointments where requested and followed the professionals� recommendations to provide effective care.

The provider met the principles of Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff were matched with people based on their cultural and language similarities. People were supported by the same staff team. People told us their privacy was respected and staff treated them with dignity.

Staff met people's religious, cultural and gender preference needs and these were recorded in people's care plans. The provider worked with and supported lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Staff were trained in equality and diversity. The provider followed appropriate procedures to maintain people's confidentiality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported by staff who knew people�s likes and dislikes. The care plans were personalised and gave information on how people would like to be supported. People and their relatives were involved in the care reviews.

Staff supported people to access community venues and participate in activities where requested.

People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. The provider responded to people�s concerns and complaints in a timely manner.

People were supported with end of life care support but their care plans did not always reflect their end of life needs.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 25 July 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

The provider had made improvements in their recordkeeping systems and monitoring and evaluation processes. There were some areas of care delivery that the management was in the process of improving to ensure consistency.

Staff and a local authority told us they had seen improvements since the last inspection and the service was well managed.

People, their relatives and staff told us the management was approachable. Staff told us they felt supported and listened to. The provider sought feedback from people and their relatives to improve the care delivery.