Archived: Quality Home Care Suffolk

Updated 19 June 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 30 March and 2 April 2015 and was announced. The provider was given two working days’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before we carried out our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives, three care staff, the quality assurance manager and the provider (both of whom also undertake care shifts).

We reviewed six care plans, three medication records, three staff recruitment files, staffing rotas and quality assurance reports from two local authorities who have contracts with the service.

We accompanied two care staff on some morning calls and observed them providing care and support to four people in their own homes.

Updated 19 June 2015

The inspection took place on 30 March and 2 April 2015 and was announced. The service received 24 hours’ notice of our intention to inspect the service. This is in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.

The service provides care and support to people in their own home.

There was no registered manager in post, however the quality assurance manager has applied to register and this application is currently being considered by the commission. 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.

Staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse and they understood their responsibilities. Safeguarding concerns had been raised appropriately with the local authority.

Risks to people and staff were assessed and actions taken to minimise them.

Staffing levels were assessed and kept under review. There was a recruitment procedure in place which ensured that staff were safe to carry out this kind of work, however references were not always taken up or checked thoroughly.

Medicines were administered safely and records related to medicines were accurate.

Training was provided for staff to help them carry out their roles and increase their knowledge about the health conditions of the people they were caring for.

People gave their consent before care and treatment was provided and, although most staff had not received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 we found that staff had some knowledge of it and decisions, with the exception of one, had been taken in line with it. The MCA ensures that, where people lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions are made in their best interests according to a structured process.

People were supported with their eating and drinking and staff helped to ensure that people had access to the food and drink they might need after staff had left for their next call. Staff also supported people with their day to day health needs and worked in partnership with other healthcare professionals.

Staff were very caring and people were treated respectfully and their dignity was maintained. Relationships were good between staff and the people they were supporting. This was helped by the way that small teams worked in particular areas which aimed to ensure consistent staffing. We observed staff providing high quality care along with friendly banter and humour which was very well received by the people they were caring for. People could not praise the staff highly enough.

People were involved in planning and reviewing their own care and were encouraged to provide feedback in a variety of ways to enable the service to learn and grow. People were firmly in control of what care they received and how it was provided.

No formal complaints had been made but informal complaints, gathered as a result of the regular feedback the service encouraged, were dealt with promptly and to the satisfaction of the people raising the issue.

Staff understood their roles and were well supported by the management team. People who used the service, their relatives and staff were very positive about the management of the service and praised the open culture and excellent communication.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the delivery of the service.