You are here

Ideal Community Care Solutions C.I.C Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The inspection site visit for Ideal Community Care Solutions C.I.C. took place on 16 August 2017 and was announced. On 31 August 2017 we contacted people that used the service and their relatives via telephone so that we could obtain their views of the support they received.

The service was part of a non-profit organisation based in Brigg called The Carer’s Support Centre, a charity to support carers in the community. The service, but not the charity, required registration with the Care Quality Commission, as it provided personal care and support to people living in their own homes whose carers needed a break. It provided a service to those that needed assistance because of living with old age, dementia, learning disability, autism, mental health, physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 121 people receiving the service but only 59 of those received personal care. Other people received a sitting service, domestic calls or safety checks from Ideal Community Care Solutions C.I.C.

At the last inspection in April 2015 the service met all of the regulations we assessed and was rated as ‘Good’, but with one area (Safe) rated as ‘Requires Improvement.’ This was because risk assessments for some people were insufficiently developed to ensure that

accurate information was available to help assistants keep them safe from harm.

At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ but with a different area (Well-led) rated as ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because the recommendations made in the ‘Safe’ section were now met, as risk assessments for people removed any risks of harm. However, there was no registered manager in post.

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. A service that does not have a registered manager in place cannot receive a higher rating than 'Requires Improvement' in the well-led domain as the registered provider is in breach of the conditions of their registration. A new manager had been appointed and an application for them to become the registered manager was in progress.

We also found that the quality monitoring and assurance systems were insufficiently developed to always be effective. Therefore we made a recommendation regarding development of the quality assurance system. The quality monitoring and assurance systems included some audits of the service and issuing of satisfaction surveys. However, analysis of information was insufficiently developed as it had not resulted in action plans always being used to show how improvements would be made and there was no means of feeding back to stakeholders the findings and results of any action that was taken.

People told us they felt safe when supported by personal support assistants. The registered provider (known as provider in this report) had systems in place to address safeguarding concerns. Assistants were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of recording and reporting incidents. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to protect them from harm.

People’s living environments were assessed for any hazards to them or personal support assistants and risk assessments put in place if required to ensure everyone’s safety. Assistants’ numbers were sufficient to meet people’s need and rosters were used to record who was on duty. Recruitment practices were safe and ensured assistants were suitable to care for and support vulnerable people. We found that the management of medicines was safely carried out.

People were cared for and supported by qualified and competent assistants that received

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was safe. Improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to risk management.

People were protected from harm because the registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns.

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

Effective

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 September 2017

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 30 September 2017

The service was not always well led.

This was because there was no registered manager in post. It was also because the quality assurance system, though effective, did not always include action plans to improve shortfalls or ensure people received feedback on any improvements made.

The culture of the service was inclusive and the management style of the management team was positive.

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 held securely in the premises.