Archived: SureCare (Southend)

Updated 19 April 2018

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 25 January 2018 and 8, 9, 13, February and 7 March 2018 and was announced at short notice to ensure that the registered manager was available. It was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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 also reviewed other information that we hold about the service such as safeguarding information and notifications. Notifications are the events happening in the service that the provider is required to tell us about. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection.

We spoke with 11 people, five relatives, a health and social care professional, the registered manager and 14 members of staff. We reviewed 13 people’s care files and five staff recruitment and support records. We also looked at a sample of the service’s medication system, quality assurance processes, training records, staff duty rotas and complaints records.

Updated 19 April 2018

The Inspection took place on 25 January 2018, 8, 9, and 13 February 2018 and 14 March 2018 and it was announced.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to older people and younger adults.

At the last inspection, the service was rated requires improvement in effective and well led. This gave them an overall rating of requires improvement. At this inspection, we found the service had made improvements in both effective and well led and now was rated good overall. Care workers had received training, and regular updates had been planned. The quality assurance system had improved and included all of the necessary checks to ensure people received a good quality service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 received safe care and support. Care workers knew how to support people and protect them from the risk of harm. There were risk assessments in place for people using the service and for care workers. The service operated safe recruitment practices and employed sufficient care workers to meet people’s needs. Although there were some issues with the medication system, they have now been put right. People received their medication safely as prescribed. Care workers demonstrated a good knowledge of infection control procedures and had completed infection control training..

People’s needs had been assessed and their care plans regularly reviewed and updated. Care workers received regular supervision and senior staff completed spot checks to ensure they carried out their work safely and effectively. Where required, staff supported people with food and drink and with their healthcare. The service worked well in partnership with other professionals to ensure people had the right support.

The service worked in line with other legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were cared for by kind, caring and respectful care workers. They listened to what people had to say, treated people with dignity and ensured they had the privacy they needed. People and their relatives said they were kept involved and informed. People’s independence was encouraged as much as possible while minimising any risks to help keep them safe.

People received responsive personalised care. Their care plans and daily communication sheets were detailed and informative. There was a clear complaints procedure and complaints had been dealt with appropriately. People had confidence in the registered manager and in how the service was being run. Several people said they would recommend the service to others. The care workers training had improved and they said they felt supported by the registered manager. The quality assurance system was more effective and management and care workers learnt from mistakes and made improvements to the service provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.