Archived: Cayon Care Service

There were two people using the service for support with their personal care. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with a relative, two members of staff supporting them, the manager of the service and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Care staff had worked for the service for a number of years and knew the people who used the service well. People receiving support had relatives who monitored the care and support they were receiving. We spoke to a relative who told us. 'It meets (my family's) expectations and we feel our relative is safe."

Two out of the three care staff supporting people had a recognised qualification in health and social care and the third was undertaking the qualification.

We checked people's care plans and found that these were detailed and up to date. We found care plans matched people's needs identified at the assessment and any changes required following a review of these needs.

Is the service effective?

People's care and support was organised to fit in with the needs of the person or their family. For one person this meant that the service would provide assistance at the time that they needed it to attend activities and to give family members support.

Care staff provided care in the way that they were supposed to and were mostly prompt and stayed for the right amount of time. People who used the service or their family were asked to sign time sheets to ensure that this was correct.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with a relative who told us: "The care we are receiving from Cayon Care is working very well. It feels like another member of the family is caring for (my relative).' The care staff spoke about the people they supported in a caring and appropriate manner.

People's preferences, interests, and diverse needs had been recorded in people's care plans and people were supported as much as possible with these interests. We saw that care plans had individual details about the way person wished to have their hair attended to and their breakfast prepared and this supported the person's cultural heritage.

Is the service responsive?

A relative we spoke with told us they were able to contact the service when needed. If no one was in the office their call would be returned in a timely way. They found that the service was flexible enough to change the schedule when their relative needed support at a different time.

We looked at the care records and found that care plans were reviewed with people who used the service and their relatives. If issues were identified or concerns raised then actions were taken to resolve them quickly. For example we saw at one review that a person was receiving their service late. The manager arranged for schedules to be changed so that the member of care staff could get to the visit sooner.

Is the service well-led?

The service was led by a manager who had the qualifications, skills and experience to provide a good, well led service. The service had a complaint system in place, and we saw some completed surveys in people's care records which meant the service had systems to ensure continual improvement.

Care records showed that risk assessments were in place and where risks were identified plans were in place to minimise these risks. Care staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities to provide a service that met the needs of people.

People thought the care workers were caring and said that they felt safe with them. Amongst their comments were: "X is a nice person," "They are nice to me" and "Y is wonderful I would like to have them all the time." People had appropriate information collected about their care needs and signed to say they agreed with how their care was to be delivered.

People were not able to tell us how they would contact the service in an emergency and we had difficulty getting a response from the emergency contact. People, however, told us that they had regular contact with the manager of the service.

Two out of the three people we contacted told us of their concerns that there had been difficulty getting the service at the time they wanted and as commissioned. There were not adequate systems to monitor the quality of service being provided or to listen to, record and respond to these concerns when raised. There were no effective systems in place to ensure that staff received appropriate assessed training and that evidence of the training was available.

We gathered evidence of people's experiences through speaking with two people who use the service. We spoke with two members of staff who supported the people we spoke with about their experiences.

People we spoke with told us that the care received matched the care that was discussed with them. They told us that they were involved in planning the care and that reviews were held to reassess their needs. We saw that people and family members had provided information on their care plan.

We saw that the care plans were person centred and reflected people's needs. This meant that the care plan was based on the needs of the person. We saw that people's needs were reassessed and where necessary the care plan was updated. We saw that people's likes and dislikes were clear within their care plans.

People we spoke with told us that staff were friendly and supportive. We saw there were regular members of care staff who provided people's personal care. Continuity of staff should mean that people receive their care consistently as staff have an increased understanding of people's needs.

We spoke with staff about what they thought abuse was and they showed they had a good awareness of the importance of keeping people safe. They understood their responsibilities for reporting any concerns regarding abuse.

We saw records were kept up to date and stored securely.