You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

This inspection took place between 29 March and 10 April 2018. The provider received short notice of the inspection.

Keyfort North West is a domiciliary care service. It provides personal and nursing care to people living in their own homes in the community who have a significant physical, neuropathic and complex care needs. The office is located near Carlisle but it provides support across the county of Cumbria. There were 15 people using the service at the time of this inspection. The service also provides a social, community-access service for several other people. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with the regulated activities of personal and nursing care.

At the last inspection of Keyfort North West (formerly known as Neuro Partners North West) in March 2016 we found the provider had breached two regulations. These related to the lack of contingency arrangements in place to cover unexpected absences of staff and the lack of access by management staff to current records about people’s care needs.

Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions Safe and Well-Led to at least good. During this inspection we found improvements had been made to both areas, although we have made a recommendation about making continuing improvements to contingency staffing arrangements.

There was a registered manager in place at the service. 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.

People said they felt safe and comfortable with their support staff team. Staff were trained and confident in how to report any concerns or safeguarding matters. There were detailed risk assessments in place to show staff how to keep people safe, for example when using specialist mobility equipment or when managing people's health needs. People’s medicines were kept in their own homes. If people need assistance with their medicines they were supported safely and appropriately by staff

Staff felt they had very good training and their competencies and skills were continuously checked. Staff were supervised and supported in their roles. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff sought permission before assisting them. People were assisted to access health services when they needed them and their staff teams worked well with health care professionals.

People and relatives told us support staff were friendly, caring and helpful. They said staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff respected people’s choices and decisions and supported them in a way which promoted their independence wherever possible.

People (or their relatives where appropriate) were fully included and involved in decisions about their care service and how their staff teams were managed. This meant people received a personalised service that was tailored to their individual needs. Support staff were very familiar with the way people wanted and needed to be supported.

The registered manager and management team were all relatively new to the service and had worked hard over the past year to look at ways of improving the service. The provider had quality assurance systems in place and a clear, achievable business plan that aimed to continuously develop the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was not always safe.

Contingency staffing plans had not always been effective in making sure people were safely supported. The provider was making improvements to reduce the risk of this reoccurring.

People felt comfortable with their staff team and staff knew how to report any safeguarding concerns.

Risks to people�s safety were assessed and managed. People�s medicines were managed in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed and their care service was based on their preferences as well as current best practice guidance.

Staff had training, supervision and support to be competent in their roles.

Staff understood people�s rights and only carried out support after seeking consent.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was caring.

People felt staff were supportive, caring and helpful.

Staff understood how to assist people in a way that upheld their dignity and privacy.

People�s choices and preferences were respected, and their independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was responsive.

The service provided a personalised, tailored support based on each person�s choices and needs.

Care records included clear information and guidance for staff.

People had information about how to make a complaint or raise a concern.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 June 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in place and a new management team who were committed to making improvements.

People and relatives were encouraged to give their views of the service.

There was a quality assurance system in place to identify areas for improvement and development.