Updated 9 May 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by two inspectors. One inspector visited the registered office and then both inspectors visited people who used the service in their own homes.
The service type:
Dorset Domiciliary Care Agency is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity; the CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
This inspection site visit took place on 12 April and continued on 16 April 2019. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice. This was so we could be sure a manager or senior person was available when we visited.
What we did:
Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the service had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We used the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us when requested to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
Some of the people had complex communication needs and were unable to provide us with detailed feedback. We made general observations of interactions between care staff and people.
We spoke with ten people who used the service. We received feedback from six relatives. One health and social care professional gave feedback on the service.
We spoke with the registered manager, operations manager and 15 staff. We reviewed three people’s care files, three medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, consent to care and quality audits. We looked at two staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.