You are here

Archived: Colchester Community Care Services DCA Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The inspection took place on 20, 26 and 27 April 2016 and was announced. Colchester Community Domiciliary Care Agency is a care agency providing personal care and support to individuals residing in Colchester, Clacton and Ipswich areas. The Ipswich service is primarily a service to individuals with a diagnosis of dementia or those who require palliative care. In total the agency provides support to approximately 180 people and employs 90 staff.

At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in post but a manager from a nearby service managed by the same provider was providing management cover. 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 were well supported by the agency and there were systems in place to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. Risks to individuals were identified and managed although some of the risk management plans would benefit from more detail.

People told us that they liked having the same team of carers who knew them and gave them the time that they needed. People spoke positively about the office staff. There were clear arrangements for out of hours support to ensure that emergencies were dealt with promptly and people kept safe. Staff were checked as part of their recruitment to ensure that they were suitable. They were trained and supervised by more experienced colleagues before working independently. Supervisions and spot checks were undertaken to ensure that they were putting their training into practice.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and to access healthcare services. They told us that they were supported by friendly, caring staff who promoted their independence. There were systems in place to ascertain people’s views about their care and people told us they felt listened to.

Care plans were in place and while they would benefit from further detail, staff knew individuals, their preferences and how they wished to be supported. Complaints were taken seriously and investigated.

The manager was aware of their responsibilities and was supported by a management team. There were a range of systems in place to check on the quality of the care and to drive improvement.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was safe.

Staff were clear about their responsibilities to report matters of concern and expressed confidence that the agency would respond to issues appropriately.

Risks to people were identified and systems put into place to manage them and reduce the impact on individuals.

Staff�s suitability for employment was checked and there were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe.

Where people needed support with their medication this was provided by staff who had been trained.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had received training and guidance.

People were supported to make decisions about their care.

People were supported with eating and drinking and helped to stay healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were consulted about their needs and their preferences were respected.

Staff knew how to support people to be as independent as possible and promote peoples dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s needs were assessed and documented. People had a say in how they were supported and their plan of care was reviewed if changes occurred.

Peoples concerns were taken seriously and they were listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 June 2016

The service was well led.

There was a clear management structure and visible leadership.

There was a quality system in operation which sought the views of people who used the service and identified areas for improvement.