Archived: Allied Healthcare Stonebridge

Updated 9 September 2015

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.

We visited Allied Healthcare Stonebridge on 4 June 2015 and returned to review further information on 18 June. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience who conducted telephone interviews with people who used the service and family members. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for

someone who uses this type of care service.

We used a range of methods to help us to understand the experiences of people who used the service. We reviewed records held by the service that included the care records for nine people receiving care and support and eight staff records, along with records relating to the management of the service. We spoke with the operations manager, the newly appointed service manager, and six staff members. We were also able to speak with 16 people who used the service and two family members.

Before our inspection we looked at the information that we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, notifications, enquiries and other information that that we had received from the service. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give key information about the service, what the service does well, and the improvements that they plan to make.

Updated 9 September 2015

Our inspection of Allied Healthcare Stonebridge took place on 4 June 2015 and was announced. 48 hours’ notice of the inspection was given because we wanted to be sure that a manager was available when we visited. We returned to the service on 18 June as we needed to review further information in order to complete the inspection process.

Allied Healthcare Stonebridge is a domiciliary care agency that provides a range of care supports to adults living in their own homes. People who used the service had a range of support needs including physical and sensory impairments, learning disabilities, mental health needs and conditions associated with ageing, such as dementia. In addition to providing personal care, the service also assisted people with domestic tasks, such as shopping, housework and meal preparation. At the time of our inspection the service provided 1300 hours of support per week to 110 people living within the London Borough of Ealing.

The service had re-registered with CQC during September 2014 due to a change of address. At our last inspection of Allied Healthcare Stonebridge on 1 February 2014 that took place under their previous registration, we found the service was compliant in relation to all of the outcomes that we assessed.

The previous registered manager had left the service. 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. A new manager had been appointed and had commenced the process of registration with CQC.

People told us that they felt safe when receiving care. Staff members understood how to safeguard the people whom they supported. There were appropriate numbers of staff employed to ensure that people’s needs were met and that there was continuity of care in the case of staff absence. The provider had carried out checks to ensure that staff members were of good character and suitable for the work that they were engaged in.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that risks associated with the provision of care and support were assessed and managed. However, although most people’s care plans included guidance for staff on how to manage identified risks, we saw that this was not always the case. This meant that staff might not always be able to protect people from the risk of harm.

Staff received regular training that covered a wide range of topics and met national training standards for staff working in health and social care services. They were able to describe the training that they had received and tell us about how it helped them to support the people with whom they worked. Training and information had been provided to staff about The Mental Capacity Act (2005), including the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards. Information about people’s capacity to consent was contained within their care plans, and staff were able to describe how they supported people to make decisions and choices about their care.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that staff were provided with regular supervision by a manager. However some staff members had not been supervised for at least six months, even though the provider’s policy showed that these should take place on a three monthly cycle. This meant that that the provider was not following its own policy on supervision and could not always be sure that staff maintained their competencies in the roles in which they were working.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported, and people were involved in making decisions about their care. People told us that they thought that staff who worked with them were professional, caring and respectful, and gave examples of how they were supported to maintain independence as much as possible. Staff spoke positively about the work that they did and the people whom they supported.

People told us that they knew how to contact the office and were confident that the provider would deal with complaints appropriately and quickly. People also said that they had received questionnaires or visits from a manager to obtain feedback about the service that they received. We saw that people’s feedback about the service showed high levels of satisfaction with the care and support that they received.

There were effective processes in place to monitor the care and welfare of people and improve the quality of the service. We saw that the service had made positive changes in relation to information that they had obtained from these processes.

Although reporting and recording of incidents was generally well managed, the provider had failed to submit a regulatory notification to CQC following a safeguarding concern. Although we saw evidence that the local safeguarding had addressed this, the provider had failed to meet the requirements of their registration in not formally notifying CQC.

We found two breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.