Archived: Temple Mead Care Ltd

Updated 3 March 2016

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.

This inspection took place on 13 January 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

This inspection was carried out to check on whether the warning notices issued following our last inspection in September 2015 and to consider if the service had made sufficient improvements to be removed from special measures.

We looked at the information we held about the service and provider. This included the notifications that the provider had sent to us about incidents at the service and information we had received from the public. Notifications are required from the provider about their service in relation to accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law. We contacted the local authority that purchases the care on behalf of people to see what information they held about the service.

We spoke with 11 people who used the service, three people’s representatives and six care staff. During the office visit we were supported by a care manger, two care coordinators and the registered manager. We looked at the recruitment and training records of four care staff. We looked at four people’s care records, computer records and daily logs to check the care provided to people and records associated with monitoring the quality of the service. We reviewed all the information we hold about the service.

Updated 3 March 2016

This inspection took place on 13 January 2016 and was unannounced.

We last inspected this service on 1 and 17 September 2015 when this service was rated as providing an inadequate service in response to the questions is the service safe and well. As a result of our findings at that inspection we issued warning notices to the registered manager and provider in respect of not ensuring that checks were carried out on staff that had been employed and the poor governance of the service. The service was also put into special measures so that we could continue to closely monitor the service.

At this inspection we saw that sufficient improvements had been made so that the special measures were no longer in place. However we saw that further improvements were needed to ensure that the provider had good governance processes so that that the quality of the service improved.

Temple Mead Care Limited provides personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 62 people who were receiving a service. Most people were elderly, had complex health needs or a physical disability.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The provider had some systems in place that enabled them to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. These systems were not used effectively to ensure that people received a consistently good quality service and further improvements in the quality of the service were needed. We identified that this was a breach of regulation. You can see the actions we have asked the provider to make at the end of this report.

People told us that they felt safe with the staff that supported them because staff knew how to protect people from harm. Where concerns had been raised the registered manager liaised appropriately with the local authority to ensure people’s safety.

There was a system in place to ensure that checks were undertaken when staff were first employed by the provider. These included police checks and checks with previous employers.

There were sufficient members of staff employed to meet people’s needs but systems in place did not ensure that people always received support at the times agreed.

Risks associated with people’s care needs were identified and plans put in place to ensure people were protected from unnecessary risk.

People were supported to take their medicines and received their meals as required except when calls were late.

People were supported by staff that had received training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to support people safely.

People were supported to make decisions about the care they received and there were no restrictions on their liberty.

People received care and support from staff they had got to know and built up a relationship with them. Staff were caring towards people and ensured that they maintained people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to remain independent.

There were systems in place to gather the views of people but issues were not always followed up promptly.