Archived: Self Direct Support

People who used the service told us that their care workers were always pleasant, friendly, reliable and respected their privacy and dignity. Care workers were described as "fine", "punctual", "very good", "very conscientious", and "always offering to do things". People told us [the care workers] were "very helpful, got a routine", and "do it by the book".

The care workers told us that the support from the management team enabled them to do their work well. We found new staff attended an induction programme, and training was provided to all staff to ensure they were up to date. Regular team meetings were held with individual teams and and regular one to one supervisions to provide care workers with an opportunity to discuss their work and professional development.

We found record keeping was inconsistent however during our inspection the provider put measures in place including changes to supervisory roles of some staff and training for all staff, to address our concerns.

People who used the service told us that their care workers were reliable, caring, and considerate. Staff were described as "excellent", "absolutely fantastic" and "good as gold". People told us they were "so lucky with the carers" and "I can't fault them". Some care planning records had been reviewed and updated. However we found that two people we visited did not have up to date care plans. Medicine administration records for one person were not completed accurately. This meant that people were at risk of receiving care and treatment that was unsafe or inappropriate.

All the care workers had received appropriate training for their role and people told us they were "very experienced". The care workers told us they felt well supported by the agency as they met regularly with their line manager and there were regular team meetings.

The agency's policies and procedures had been reviewed and updated since our last visit so that care workers had access to correct information. Complaints were investigated properly and people informed of the outcome. The agency had systems in place to obtain feedback from people who used the service and monitor the quality of care provided.

We looked at the care records for five people, visited four of them and four relatives in their own homes and spoke with a healthcare professional. We spoke to five care workers, the agency's managers for health and social care, and the registered manager.

We looked at documents held in the agency's office that pertained to the care people received, safeguarding people from abuse, staff training and quality assurance.

People who used the service told us that their regular care workers were reliable, caring and considerate and they felt safe with them. Comments included "they are absolutely brilliant", "very polite" and "very helpful".

Most care workers had received training for their role. But there were times when people were provided with staff who had not received the appropriate training to meet individual needs due to a shortage of staff. Staff had not met regularly with their line manager nor had their practice observed when working with people.

Records and documents, including care planning records, were out of date or not completed properly and people did not have access to electronic records held by the agency about them.

Systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of service were inadequate.