Archived: ARRCC - The School Creative Centre

Updated 9 November 2017

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 process took place between the 7 August to 11 August 2017. This was an announced inspection. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given to ensure that the people we needed to speak to were available. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

During the inspection process we spoke with four people who used the service and two relatives. We asked what it was like to receive care and support from ARRCC. We reviewed five people’s care plans and associated records. We spoke with four staff and the acting manager.

We looked at staff’s recruitment, supervision and training records, and spoke with the provider about the systems in place for monitoring the quality of care people received. We reviewed comments staff had made in a feedback survey and looked at a variety of the service’s policies such as those relating to accidents and incidents, medicines, complaints and quality assurance.

Before our inspection we the information we held about the agency, including previous inspection reports. We reviewed the provider’s information return (PIR) and responses from questionnaires sent by us to people, their relatives, staff and community professionals. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at safeguarding alerts which had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

Updated 9 November 2017

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at ARRCC The School Creative Centre in November 2016 where breaches of Regulation were found. We issued requirement notices for these breaches. As a result we undertook an inspection to follow up on whether the required actions had been taken. Although we found improvements had been made there remained some areas that required improvement.

This inspection took place between the 7 August to 11 August 2017. Two days were spent at the providers office (7 and 8 August 2017) and following this additional time was taken to telephone people, their relatives and staff. This was an announced inspection. This means the provider was given notice due to it being a domiciliary care provider and we needed to ensure someone was available. The inspection involved visits to the agency’s office and telephone conversations with people and their relatives.

ARRCC - The School Creative Centre is a domiciliary care company based in Rye. They provide support and care for predominately older people living in their own homes. People using the services were at risk of falls and had long term healthcare needs such recovering from strokes and living with dementia type illness. ARRCC - The School Creative Centre provides services within an approximate 10 mile radius from their office in Rye. At the time of our inspection 10 people were using the service. The support offered by the ARRCC - The School Creative Centre often complemented pre-existing care packages provided by other care agencies. ARRCC - The School Creative Centre also offered domestic and social support and assisted people to access health care appointments.

There was an acting manager in post who was undergoing the registration process to become the providers registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Despite improvements with the care planning documentation and the risk assessments contained within them we found some people were awaiting having their records transferred on the new format. This meant that the previous shortfalls we found in the risk assessment process had not as yet been fully addressed and as such the provider could not be assured that clear risk management were available to staff.

Most people did not require support with their medicines and since our last inspections there had been improvements in the administration records available to staff associated with supporting people. However we found minor anomalies in how staff were completing this paperwork which meant there was a risk their recording may not be consistent.

Staff had an understanding of consent and respecting people’s choices and decisions. However we found there remained ongoing improvements with how routine best interest decisions were completed and recorded within care documentation.

The previous concerns identified at our last inspection related to people’s care plans had, in most cases, improved. However, there remained some care plans which did not always reflect the actual care people were being supported with. The acting manager was aware of these shortfalls and was working to ensure staff had appropriate and relevant information available to ensure people received person centred care.

The acting manager had not been consistently supported in their new role by the provider. We found examples where they needed additional direction, support and resources to ensure they were able to sustain improvements.

Care staff had been supported effectively through a supervision or training process. New systems had been established to ensure staff had access to a range of training designed to enable them to be able to support people in their own homes.

People were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of staff. People told us they were supported by friendly, reliable and caring staff who respected their privacy and promoted their independence. People who needed it were supported to eat and drink enough and staff knew what to do if they thought someone was at risk of not eating or drinking sufficient amounts. People were supported with their day to day health care needs.

Audits were completed and the acting manager tracked all significant and no routine events to ensure any follow up actions were taken appropriately and in a timely manner.