You are here

The Hydro Domiciliary Care Agency

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 8 May 2014
Date of Publication: 17 June 2014
Inspection Report published 17 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 8 May 2014

During a routine inspection

The Hydro Domiciliary Care Agency currently provides support for up to six people in flats owned by the provider and rented through a separate tenancy agreement. Four people were receiving care at the time of our inspection. A separately registered older person's home and two community houses for people with learning disabilities are located on the same site.

A manager was appointed in September 2013 for The Hydro and the community houses, and had applied for registration with the CQC. The care home is managed by another manager registered with the CQC.

As part of our inspection we spoke with three people receiving care, managers and staff working at the service. We also examined records and observed people receiving care.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with receiving support told us they were happy with their care. One person said, �It�s the best place I�ve been to.� Systems were in place to monitor the safety and quality of care provided by the service. A plan was in place to help ensure people could continue to receive care if an emergency occurred. People�s needs were assessed but care planning did not always ensure their welfare and safety. Changes and updates were not always made to care plans and important information about reducing risks and specific care needs were not always included. People who had behaviours described as �challenging� did not have adequately detailed plans to ensure their care was safe and appropriate. Insufficient guidance was available for staff to help people who may need to be physically restrained. This meant there was a risk to people�s safety and welfare. Adequate numbers of suitable staff were provided in the daytime and evening but there were not enough staff to provide safe support for people at night, including if there was an emergency. Restrictions placed on some people at the service to keep them safe could mean they were at risk of having their liberty deprived. Appropriate procedures had not been followed to ensure people�s rights were not breached.

Is the service effective?

We found although consent was sometimes obtained for people's care, appropriate arrangements had not always been made if people could not consent for themselves due to their learning disability. We found people's needs were assessed and care files included some information about risks that could affect them. The care planning process had not always been used to effectively describe people�s needs and the support they needed. This meant people's welfare and safety was not always protected.

Is the service caring?

People told us they liked the staff and were happy with their care. One person told us, "The people are all nice and I like my flat too." We saw staff providing people�s care and that they were respectful and responsive to their needs. People�s preferences and lifestyle choices were included in their care records.

Is the service responsive?

People receiving care told us they were confident any concerns or complaints about the service would be properly responded to. Systems were in place for obtaining people's views about the service including regular meetings for people receiving care, team meetings for staff and surveys for people connected with the service. Records showed the manager made changes in response to any concerns. Care plans were not always updated to reflect changes in people�s care needs.

Is the service well-led?

A system of checks was in place regarding managing medicines, staff training and health and safety at the service. Professional advice was obtained to help plan people�s care and this was usually followed.