Archived: Companion In Care Limited - Tottenham

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 the full report.

Is the service safe?

Most people using the service preferred not to talk to us on the day of our visit. We asked one person whether they felt safe living at the home and they told us, 'of course I'm happy.'

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Staff were able to give some examples of signs they would look out for that could indicate a person was being abused, including a change in behaviour or becoming withdrawn or unexplained bruising. Staff also gave examples of the types of abuse, for example, financial, physical or emotional.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with one person who told us that they were treated 'fair' by staff. Staff and records confirmed that they had received recent supervision. Although the manager and staff confirmed that they had received an appraisal, we saw no evidence of this. We saw that some staff had received training in key areas, such as, infection control, mental health awareness and fire safety. However, the manager and the remaining staff were not up to date with their training. Therefore we could not be confident that staff personal development needs were met to ensure that people received support from competent staff.

Is the service caring?

Staff we spoke with showed that they understood the needs of individual people they cared for. For example, one member staff told us that they felt it was important to encourage people to be as independent possible by allowing people to make their own choices, for example, how they prefer to be addressed. As part of their key working role staff told us that they helped people to engage with other community services.

We were shown quality assurance monitoring forms which had been completed by people using the service. This included questions such as, how people found the service and whether people felt involved/consulted in the running of the home. Overall most people felt the service that was provided was good.

Is the service responsive?

People had their individual needs assessed. Most people using the service had a care plan which reflected their individual needs.

We saw that there was a system for dealing with complaints and staff listened to people's concerns. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

Staff members we spoke with were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy and were able to explain in what circumstances they would use this. For example, where they believed that appropriate action had not been taken by the provider where concerns of abuse had been raised. This showed that the provider had effective systems in place.

We saw that, although, staff had some understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), staff we spoke with were not aware of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). This may mean that people were not always protected from the risk of abuse.

We also spoke with two members of staff and looked at records relating to the running of the home and the care of the people living at the home.

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

This inspection was undertaken to look at the progress the provider had made since our last visit on 19 April 2012.

When we visited last time we found that the provider had failed to ensure that people who were using the service were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises by taking appropriate measures to ensure the security of the premises. This time we found that the premises were secured appropriately.

We also found that the provider had not maintained accurate records. This was because when we checked the staff rota it was inaccurate for the day of the visit. When we visited this time the staff rota was accurate.

On this visit we found that the provider had not reported to the Care Quality Commission incidents that had been investigated by the Police.