You are here

The Hydro Domiciliary Care Agency

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 April 2013
Date of Publication: 11 June 2013
Inspection Report published 11 June 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 April 2013, checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care and talked with carers and / or family members. We talked with staff, reviewed information given to us by the provider and talked with other authorities.

Our judgement

Although people’s needs were assessed, their care and treatment was not always planned and delivered to meet their needs and ensure their safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with the relatives of two people using the service. They told us they were mostly satisfied with the service provided. One relative said, “I’m impressed with the lengths they’ll go to to ensure the care meets her needs”. The other relative said, “Most of the time they understand what she needs. Just occasionally we need to explain”. Both relatives were satisfied with the reliability of the service. A social worker for one person using the service told us they were happy with the care and support the person received.

People’s needs were assessed. The records we saw showed that people’s needs were assessed before and after they started using the service. The relatives we spoke with told us that the manager of the agency had assessed the person’s needs before the service started.

Care and treatment was not always planned and delivered to meet people’s individual needs and to ensure their safety and welfare. The care plans we saw had insufficient information for staff about what to expect or how to provide support that fully ensured the person’s safety and well being. For example, one person’s mental health condition was noted, but there was no guidance for staff about how to support the person with some aspects of their condition. The other person’s care plan lacked detail of how staff should support the person to reduce their anxieties.

The risk assessments we saw were not always accurately completed or kept up to date. One person’s risk assessment stated that there were no risks to staff who provided care and support. However, it was apparent that staff were at risk because of the person’s behaviour. The other person had relevant risk assessments in place. One of these was dated in January with a review date in February, but it had not been reviewed.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We saw there was a business continuity plan that covered various contingencies, such as loss of access to the agency office and staff not being available. Staff training records showed that most staff had received training in first aid and health and safety.