Archived: ABCare

Updated 10 November 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.

This announced inspection took place on 8, 10, 15, 18 and 22 September 2015 and was undertaken by two inspectors and an inspection manager. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out providing care and we needed to be sure they would be present for our inspection.

Before our inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service and asked for feedback from the local authority and Healthwatch.

During our inspection we carried out visits to four people’s homes where we spoke with them, two relatives, a care worker. We also spoke with two people who used the service and two care workers on the telephone. During our visit to the agency office we spoke with the registered provider (who is also the registered manager) and another manager. We looked at five people care records, staff training records and two staff recruitment records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service including audits, rosters, and records relating to complaints.

Updated 10 November 2015

ABCare (previously known as Abacus Care (Cambridgeshire)) is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people in their own homes in Cambridgeshire. At the time of our inspection care was provided to seven people.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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. The registered manager and registered provider of this service were the same person.

At our inspection on 12 March 2015 we found that the provider had failed to comply with the requirements of warning notices that we had served on 12 August 2014 in relation to the poor management of medicines and governance. We also found shortfalls relating to care planning and guidance for staff on how to provide care to each person, staffing checks and staffing levels. The provider told us on 27 April 2015 that they had made improvements to the service and were “now meeting the required standards”

This announced inspection took place on 8, 10, 15, 18 and 22 September 2015. It was planned to check whether the provider had made any improvements and if they were now compliant with the regulations. We found improvements had been made but there were still shortfalls in the service provided to people.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s safety was managed effectively. However, staff did not always follow these procedures, placing the person receiving care and themselves at risk of harm. People were supported to manage their prescribed medicines safely.

Staff were only employed after the provider carried out satisfactory pre-employment checks. There were sufficient staff to safely meet people’s assessed needs. Staff were trained and well supported by their managers. The provider had an effective disciplinary procedure.

The CQC monitors the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. We found people’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected.

Where people required support with meals, they received the types of foods they preferred and were helped them maintain a good diet. People were supported to maintain good health and seek medical attention when required.

People said most of the care workers were caring and said they were treated with respect and were mindful of people’s dignity. People were provided with information about the service and involved in their care needs assessments and care planning. People’s care plans were detailed and accurate and provided staff with sufficient guidance to provide consistent care to each person.

However, people were not always informed of changes to their agreed call times or the care workers providing their care and people’s assessments were not always accurate.

The provider monitored the service provided to people through audits and feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on the service in various ways including written surveys and telephone calls. However, we found that the provider’s quality assurance systems were not always effective and had failed to identify some areas of concern that we found.

The provider followed their procedure when investigating complaints. People were aware of how to make a complaint and said these were resolved.