Archived: Ideal Community Care Solutions C.I.C

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. At the time of our inspection there were 53 people who received personal care.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Since our last inspection there was now a registered manager in post. Governance and leadership had improved.

People and their family members told us they felt safe being supported by the care staff, who were polite and caring. Staff understood how to report any safeguarding concerns.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. Staff were recruited safely. Staffing was provided consistently by staff who knew people well and stayed the right length of time.

Assessments were carried out thoroughly before people started to use the service and advice and guidance from healthcare professionals was followed where needed. Staff told us they were well trained and supported.

People told us they usually knew who was arriving to provide their support. Staff provided good nutritional support where this was required for people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. The service had worked to share understanding of gender equality with the staff team.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint. There was a clear management structure and staff were supported by the registered manager. People's feedback was sought regularly and acted upon. We received positive feedback about how the service was managed. Quality assurance systems were completed. Team meetings were held regularly to pass on key information and involve staff in the running of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published 30 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

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 regular supervision and had their personal performance annually assessed. People’s mental capacity was appropriately assessed and their rights were protected.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and assistants supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Everyone that worked in the service had knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in respect of the legislation around capacity and they understood the importance of people being supported to make decisions for themselves.

Assistants were kind and provided compassionate care to people. They knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were provided with information, encouraged to remain independent, involved in their care and always asked for their consent before assistants undertook care and support tasks. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected.

Person-centred support plans reflected people’s needs and were regularly reviewed. There was an effective complaint procedure in place and people were able to have any complaints investigated without bias. People had their relationships with relatives and friends respected.

The culture among the personal support assistants was inclusive and respectful and the management style of the service was positive. People had opportunities to make their views known through direct discussions and formal complaint and quality monitoring formats. People were assured that recording systems used in the service protected their privacy and confidentiality as records were well maintained and were held securely.