The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Carechoice

11 The Plain, Thornbury, Bristol, BS35 2AG (01454) 411399

Provided and run by:
Care Choice

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

18 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In October 2013 we inspected Carechoice and found that significant improvements were needed in the way the service was arranged and delivered, management of medicines, how service provision was monitored and how complaints were dealt with. Following the inspection Care Choice (the provider) told us about the changes they intended to make. The purpose of this review was to check that the improvements had been made.

We did not contact people who used the agency during this review. Carechoice provided between 713-898 hours support per week to 67 people. The agency employed 39 carers, two care coordinators (Yate and Patchway/Thornbury area), office staff and a service manager. The improved staffing structure ensured that the service provided was more efficient and met people's expectations.

People were involved in making decisions about how their care/support needs were met. Care profiles and routines for each visit were prepared and gave a clear account of how the person was supported. Where people were supported with their medicines, clear plans were in place. Carers received appropriate training and their skills were re-checked to ensure safe procedures were followed.

Carers were supported to do their job and received appropriate and relevant training. They were regularly monitored to ensure they provided a good service.

The manager had implemented systems to monitor and audit service provision, acted upon any issues raised and dealt with any complaints.

10, 11, 14 October 2013

During a routine inspection

This was a planned inspection which we brought forward because of concerns raised with us. We spoke with people who used the service, the provider, deputy manager, carers and office staff. People told us 'the carers are excellent', 'the carers are very kind and respectful', 'I need help four times a day. I don't expect the same carer all the time but it would be nice if there was some regularity' and 'the care and support has been excellent but I have to closely manage arrangements as the organisation is chaotic'.

CareChoice did not ask people to sign agreement to assessments and care plans therefore it was difficult to evidence that people were involved in making decisions.

Support with medicines was potentially unsafe because the provider did not ensure that carers had the appropriate training for the tasks they were to undertake. Following our inspection appropriate training was scheduled for the relevant carers.

New carers were recruited following safe selection processes but we have suggested improvements. Training arrangements for new staff were inadequate. We have told the provider to make improvements with the way they support all staff to ensure that they were supervised and trained to do their job properly and safely.

People were not asked for their views about the service and when they made comments they did not feel they were listened to. The provider did not have measures in place to ensure that CareChoice provided safe or quality care.

5, 7 February 2013

During a routine inspection

The agency was providing care and support to 112 people at the time of our inspection and had 54 support workers. The agency was split into two areas Yate/Kingswood and Bradley Stoke/Filton/Patchway.

People who used Care Choice were given appropriate information regarding their care and support. They were involved in making decisions and agreed the preferred times for support to be provided. Before people received care and support a pre-service commencement assessment was completed.

Comments we received about the agency included 'I use to have another agency but they let me down. I changed to Care Choice and they provide the service that I need", "I am very satisfied with the service that I receive. I get the service I expect" and "I get different carers at different times of the day. It is nice to have a variety of carers come to help me'. People also told us, 'I feel safe when the carers are in my home', 'my carers look after me very well and treat me nicely' and 'no carer has ever made me feel unsafe in my own home'.

Carers were provided with training before they assisted people with their medications and also received training in safeguarding vulnerable people.

We found that the agency had a safe recruitment procedure in place and only employed people who had passed all the necessary checks. The agency handled complaints made about their service appropriately.

2 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In January 2012 we carried out a review of Care Choice South Gloucestershire and we identified an area of non compliance and two areas where the service needed to make improvements in order to maintain and sustain compliance. Following the review, Care Choice told us about the changes they intended to make. The purpose of this review was to visit the service to check on the improvements.

We found that the agency were now consistently following safe and effective recruitment and selection processes, and care workers were receiving appropriate training to do the job. The agency were maintaining records in order to show what training and supervision each individual staff member had received.

The agency had strengthened the measures they used to assess and monitor the quality of service provision. A customer survey exercise had been instigated and completed forms were in the process of being returned to the office. Management of any complaints received were being dealt with as per the agency's complaints procedure. A variety of other methods were in place in order to check workers performance and in order to gather the views of people using the service.

We found that people using the service were asked for their views about their care, and that the agency acted upon these views where needed.

27 January 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

This review was conducted as concerns about the service had been raised to us and South Gloucestershire local authority.

We met with the registered provider, who is also the registered manager. We spent two days at the office of Care Choice and during that time we spoke with other staff at the office, including the finance officer, the office manager and an administrator. We also looked at records related to the care and welfare of people who use the service and the recruitment, training and supervision records of staff. We spoke with eight people who use the service. We also spoke to four home care assistants.

People told us they had a care plan and were consulted about their care needs. They said that the staff had the skills to meet their needs. Staff were described as 'all wonderful' by one person and 'quite friendly' by another. Some people told us that they had a late call and one person said told us there had been occasions in the past when carers had not turned up. Whilst some people told us that staff arrived and stayed the full length of time of the visit, one person said that 'timekeeping was not good'.

People told us that they were happy with the care they received one person said;'Staff are kindness itself'. They described named staff as 'wonderful', 'dependable' and 'caring'. Another person told us' I am very happy with the carers who visit me, they cannot be praised highly enough'.

We have been told about concerns and complaints raised with the organisation by people who receive services. One person also posted a message on our website told us of concerns they had. Information relating to these concerns were reviewed by us.

A member of staff who has had concerns in the past said they had spoken with the registered provider, they told us that they were reassured and the provider resolved issues. Another member of staff said they were concerned about staffing and rota issues. They said they felt the company had taken on too much work and did not have the staff to cover. They also said that rotas were given to staff with short notice. We asked a member of the office staff about this. The finance manager told us that staff did know their duties in advance, they told us that due to sickness and some staff shortages there had been some difficulties in cover during the Christmas period. We were told that the situation now was that staff rotas were sent out in advance to staff.