You are here

Wolds & Coast Domiciliary Agency Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The inspection of Wolds & Coast Domiciliary Care Agency (DCA) took place on 04 and 09 November 2016 and was initially unannounced, because the inspection began as a Focussed inspection on 04 November 2016. This became a Comprehensive Rated inspection and was completed as an announced inspection on 09 November 2016. We visited the agency offices and visited five people who used the service. This was to obtain people’s views of the care and support they received.

At the last inspection in August 2015 the service met all of the regulations we assessed under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and was rated as a ‘Good’ service. At this inspection in November 2016 we also found the overall rating for this service to be 'Good' as there had been no changes in the quality of the service since the last inspection. The rating is based on an aggregation of the ratings awarded for all five key questions.

The service provides support to 35 people in their own homes, who may be living with dementia, have a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder, a physical disability or a sensory impairment. People mainly live in shared houses and have individual tenancy agreements with East Yorkshire Housing Association. The support provided to people can be with personal care, food provision, personal safety, social activity and/or financial needs.

The registered provider was required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there was a manager who had been the registered manager for the last five years. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 explained to us that the agency was owned by East Yorkshire Housing Association Limited and run as a separate concern to the ‘housing arm’, which had charity status.

People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to manage safeguarding incidents. Support workers were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing safeguarding concerns. Risks were managed and reduced on an individual basis so that people avoided injury or harm.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and we saw that rosters accurately cross referenced with the support workers on duty. However, the registered provider had been recruiting new staff for some time and this was proving difficult. Incentives had been introduced to attract new candidates to the vacancies. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were followed to ensure staff were suitable to care for and support vulnerable people. We found that the management of people’s medicines was safely carried out.

People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent support workers. Support workers were supervised and took part in an appraisal scheme regarding their personal performance, although we found that these schemes had been neglected on several occasion over the last year. This had not been identified quickly enough to prevent the lack of regular supervision having an effect on support to workers. We made a recommendation about this.

Communication was satisfactory and both people and support workers felt information was appropriately shared in good time. People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected with regard to ensuring their liberty. Support workers had knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and they encouraged people to make decisions for themselves.

We found that people received appropriate care from kind supp

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Risks were also managed and reduced so that people avoided injury or harm.

Support worker numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need and recruitment practices were carefully followed. People’s medication was safely managed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was not always effective.

People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent support workers, but workers were not always regularly supervised or received an annual appraisal of their performance. Communication was effective, people’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.

Support workers sought and respected consent from people before they supported them with care and treatment. People received adequate nutrition and hydration to support their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was caring.

People received support and care from kind support workers, who knew about their needs. People were supplied with detailed information that they needed and were involved in all aspects of their care.

People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected and staff worked hard to maintain these wherever possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported according to their support plans, which were regularly reviewed and updated.

People had their complaints investigated without bias and they were encouraged to maintain healthy relationships with family and friends.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 December 2016

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager at the service who had an open and inclusive style of management.

People had the benefit of a well-led service of care in respect of the culture of the service. The service was positively managed. Quality monitoring and checking of the service was effective.

People had opportunities to make their views known and people were assured that recording systems in use protected their privacy and confidentiality. Records were well maintained and were held securely in the company offices.