Archived: Northampton

Not everyone using Northampton receives regulated activity; the Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection, one person was receiving personal care.

At the last inspection in August 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive safe care and support. Care records contained risk assessments and risk management plans to protect people from identified risks and helped to keep them safe. They gave information for staff on the identified risk and informed staff on the measures to take to minimise any risks.

The person using the service told us that they felt cared for safely in their own home. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staff understood their role in caring for people with limited or no capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home.

Care plans were personalised to people's individual needs and wishes. Records contained detailed information to assist care workers to provide care and support in an individualised manner that respected a person's individual requirements and promoted treating people with dignity.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. They were supported to maintain good health, and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People received care from staff that were compassionate, friendly and kind. Staff had the skills and knowledge to provide the care and support people needed and were supported by a registered manager who was receptive to ideas and committed to providing a high standard of care.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. The recruitment practice protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work in their home. Staff were supported through supervision and the induction and training programmes in place.

Medicines records were not always completed correctly and failed to give a clear account of the medicines administered to people. Quality monitoring processes needed to be strengthened to ensure that the provider fully understood the development needs within the service and to enable it to focus improvement activity to ensure required standards were met.

People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to have access to healthcare services when needed and were actively involved in decisions about their care and support needs. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff had good relationships with the people who they supported. Complaints were appropriately investigated and action was taken to make improvements to the service when this was found to be necessary. Staff and people were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We spoke with a relative of one person using the service. They told us that they were happy with the care provided by the staff and their family member was,' Very happy with them' and 'gets on well with them'. They said the staff spoke to their family member in a dignified manner and they had been involved in providing information about their care needs.

We found the provider had systems in place to meet people's health and welfare needs. We also found that the staff had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had procedures in place to check that the staff had appropriate professional qualifications. We saw that the provider had a complaints system in place to ensure that any complaints raised were handled appropriately.

We spoke to three staff from the agency. They told us that they enjoyed working for the agency because the management were supportive towards them. One member of staff told us that if they had any concerns about any thing, they could talk to the manager or the provider and they listened to them. They also told us that they were able to contact the agency at any time and that they always responded to their calls. All the staff told us that they had the skills and knowledge that they needed to work with the client group they were sent out to work with in care homes.

.

We spoke with one of the providers who used Kwikfix agency staff. They told us that they were happy with the service provided from the agency. They told us that the staff that they used were experienced and good, and they did not have any concerns about any of them. They also told us that they were happy to work with the agency and said 'I would not use them if they were not good'.