You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Voyage (DCA) Maltby. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The inspection took place on 10 and 18 January 2017 with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was re-registered with the Commission in June 2016 as the provider changed the company name, so this was the first inspection of the service under the new registration.

Voyage (DCA) Maltby provides personal care to people living in supported living and also provides care and support to people living with family in their own homes. Its office is based near the centre of Rotherham. The agency supports people with a learning disability.

The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. However, the manager in post had submitted the application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager and this was being processed. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of our inspection there were 25 people using the service. People we spoke with told us they were very happy with the care and support they received.

We saw there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

We found predominantly the service employed enough staff to meet the needs of the people being supported. Staff had completed training to be able to meet people’s needs, and received regular supervision, which meant they were well supported. Staff also had an annual appraisal of their work.

We found people received a service that was based on their personal needs and wishes. Their needs had been assessed before their care package commenced and where possible they, and their relatives, had been involved in formulating their care plans. Care records sampled identified people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care and the environment they lived in.

Where people needed assistance taking their medication this was administered in a timely way by staff who had been trained to carry out this role. However, more staff required training to be able to administer medications and meet people’s needs.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The management team had a good understanding and knowledge of this topic. However staff told us they required more training to fully understand the legislation and how it impacted on people they supported.

People were provided with information about how to raise a concern and how it would be addressed. The people we spoke with told us they were confident that any concerns they raised would be dealt with promptly. The provider had learnt lessons from previous concerns and complaints and had improved systems and support.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The management team were fairly new and were implementing new systems at the time of our inspection, to ensure all areas for improvement were identified and addressed in a timely way. These systems needed to be fully implemented and embedded into practice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was safe

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. They had a clear understanding of the procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse.

Individual risks had been assessed and identified as part of the support and care planning process.

The process for recruiting new staff helped to make sure the right staff were employed to meet the needs of people safely.

People were supported to take their medication safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was effective

Staff had access to training that enabled them to care and support people who used the service safely and to a good standard.

Records demonstrated people’s capacity to make decisions. Staff had completed training in this subject. However understanding varied and more training was to be organised..

Caring

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was caring

People told us they were happy with the care and support provided. They told us care was delivered in line with their wishes.

Staff knew the people they cared for well, which meant people received consistent care that met their needs.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and offered choices. Staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People were being encouraged to be involved in planning and reviewing care plans. The plans were being reviewed and staff were implementing more person centred plans at the time of our visit.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 23 February 2017

The service was well led. However, the management team were new and systems were being developed.

The manager had only commenced in post in September 2016, they were developing a clear oversight of the service, and of the people who used the service.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. However, it was not always evidenced these were actioned. New systems were being implemented and embedded into practice.

Staff told us the management was much improved and were well supported to carry out their role.