Archived: State of The Art Care Solutions Limited

Updated 25 June 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 announced.

The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

On this occasion, we had not asked the provider to complete a provider information return (PIR) before the visit. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We were not able to speak to any healthcare professionals involved in people’s care as no records of care delivery had been kept.

We were not able to gain any feedback from the local authority or clinical commissioning group as the provider did not hold any contracts to provide care with these organisations.

We were not able to speak to people who had used the service as we the registered manager told us that they were unable to be contacted.

We were unable to speak to staff as the one staff member who had provided care did not make themselves available during the inspection period.

We were not able to observe any staff interactions with people or any care being delivered as the organisation was not currently providing care to anyone.

During our site visit, staff files for all five members of staff were made available for us to inspect; two directors of the service (one was also the registered manager), one care co-ordinator and two support workers.

No other documents were readily accessible and were not made available to us during the site visit; however we received electronic copies of requested policies and procedures via email 5 days later.

Updated 25 June 2016

We undertook an announced inspection of State of the Art Care Solutions Limited on 13 January 2016. The inspection was announced 48 hours prior to our visit to ensure that the registered manager, manager or other responsible person was available to assist with our inspection.

The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in February 2015 and has not previously been inspected.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

We identified multiple breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

State of the Art Care Solutions Limited is located in the Stalybridge area of Tameside and is an independent domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own homes. There are two directors (one of which is the registered manager), one care co-ordinator and two support staff.

The service is run from the registered manager’s home situated on a residential estate. The only documents made available to us during our site visit were staff files

We were not able to view any other documents during our visit. The registered manager told us that all other documents relating to providing the service were held electronically and unable to locate them during our visit to the location. The registered manager emailed the requested documentation to the lead inspector 5 days later.

We were provided copies of generic policies and procedures; however, these procedures were not in place operationally, for example, there was no accident and incident recording procedure or any service checks in place to assure the delivery of safe and quality care.

During the registration process of the organisation, the registered manager told us there were five people employed by the service. However, three of the five staff recorded as employees of this provider were not currently providing care; the registered manager told us that this was due to the organisation not having much business and a subsequent lack of available hours for them to work.

We spoke to the registered manager during the inspection, but we were unable to speak to the other director as they did not make themselves available to us during the inspection period. We wanted to speak to this person as they had provided care to two people.

Safe and appropriate recruitment and selection practices had not been used to ensure that suitable staff had been employed to care for vulnerable people. We found that in four out of five staff files, no safety checks had been made and there had been no recruitment and selection process.

State of the Art Care had been commissioned by a care organisation, to provide support to two young people, this organisation provided positive feedback about the worker, and said they were “very happy”, with the level of care provided.

When asked, the registered manager had a general understanding of the safeguarding of vulnerable people, however, was not able to evidence that they were aware of local arrangements and who to contact locally. The safeguarding policy emailed to the lead inspector did not provide the details of local arrangements.

During the inspection we found the registered manager to be unprepared and did not have the ready knowledge or information about the service, as they were unable to produce documentation or information at our request. They did not have the necessary infrastructure in place to provide safe and effective care. We were unable to carry out our inspection in the usual way as we were obstructed by the lack of required information and the lack of cooperation from both directors of the organisation.

The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special measures’ by CQC.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operation this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to vary the terms of their registration within six months of they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months , and if there is not enough improvements so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.