Archived: Acare

Acare provides care and support to adults in their own homes in Folkestone, Canterbury

and surrounding areas. At the time of the inspection there were nine people receiving support with their personal care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were protected from avoidable harm and risks to people were managed safely. The registered manager promoted an open culture and acted on any concerns. There were enough safely recruited, suitable staff to meet people’s needs. People were supported by a consistent staff group who attended their care visits as planned. Lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents and action was taken to prevent a reoccurrence.

People's needs were fully assessed, and care plans offered clear guidance how to support people in line with their needs. People were cared for by competent, knowledgeable and experienced staff who were supported and supervised by a skilled registered manager. Where required, staff ensured people's dietary needs and preferences were met.

People were supported to maintain good health and were referred to health professionals as needed. Staff worked with other care agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were happy with the care they received. Staff were caring and had meaningful relationships with people, many whom had been supported by the same carer for a long time. People were involved in their care and staff knew people’s needs well. People’s privacy was respected, and staff upheld their dignity when providing personal care. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and were enabled to remain living in their own home.

People received planned person-centred care which was regularly reviewed to meet their changing needs. People’s relatives were involved in their care where they chose. There had not been any complaints about the service, but people were enabled to make a complaint if they wanted to.

All people and staff were positive about the registered manager. The registered manager had ensured the delivery of high quality and safe care and understood their role and responsibilities. Risks had been identified and managed to reduce the risks. The registered manager worked closely with the staff to monitor the care provided and any improvements needed were made. People had been asked for their views on their care and staff were happy working for the provider.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 8 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Acare provides care and support to adults in their own homes. The service provides short visits to mainly older people and some younger adults. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people receiving support with their personal care. The service provided care and support visits to people in Folkestone, Canterbury and surrounding areas.

The service is run by a registered manager. 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 their medicines when they should and told us medicines were handled safely.

Risks associated with people’s care had been assessed and steps to reduce risks were in place to ensure people remained safe.

People were involved in the initial assessment and the planning their care and support and some had chosen to involve their relatives as well. Care plans contained good detail about people wishes and preferences. People told us their independence was encouraged wherever possible and this was supported by the care plan.

People told us their consent was gained at each visit through discussions with staff. People were supported to make their own decisions and choices. No one was subject to an order of the Court of Protection. Some people chose to be supported by family members when making decisions. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant. The registered manager understood the principles of the MCA.

People felt safe using the service and when staff were in their homes. The service had safeguarding procedures in place and staff had received training in these. Staff demonstrated an understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns in order to keep people safe.

People had their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff. People received a service from a very small team of regular staff and felt the continuity of care was excellent. Staffing numbers were kept under constant review. New staff underwent a thorough induction programme, which included relevant training courses and shadowing experienced staff for a wide variety of tasks, until they were competent to work on their own. Staff received training appropriate to their role and most staff had gained qualifications in health and social care.

People were supported to maintain good health. People told us how observant staff were in spotting any concerns with their health. The service worked jointly with health care professionals, such as community nurses.

People felt staff were very caring. People said they were relaxed in staffs company and staff listened and acted on what they said. People had always been treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was respected. Staff were kind and caring in their approach and knew people and their support needs very well.

People told us they received person centred care that was individual to them. They felt staff understood their specific needs relating to their age and physical disabilities. Staff had built up relationships with people and were familiar with their personal histories and preferences.

People told us that communication with the registered manager was very good. People saw the registered manager regularly, because as well as undertaking assessments, care planning and reviews they worked ‘hands on’ delivering care every day. People felt confident in complaining, but did not have any concerns. People had opportunities to provide feedback about the service provided. No negative feedback had been received. People felt the service was well-led and well organised.

The provider had aims and objective to promote the highest standards of care and people felt they received this.

Acare provides care and support to adults in their own homes. The service provides short visits to mainly older people and some younger adults. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people receiving support with their personal care. The service provided care and support visits to people in Canterbury and surrounding areas.

The service is run by a registered manager. 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 they received their medicines when they should and felt their medicines were handled safely. However we found shortfalls in some areas of medicine management.

Most risks associated with people’s care had been assessed, although some had not. Staff were taking action to reduce such risks, but there was not always sufficient guidance in place for staff to help ensure people remained safe.

People were involved in the initial assessment and the planning their care and support and some had chosen to involve their relatives as well. Most care plans contained good detail about people wishes and preferences. People told us their independence was encouraged wherever possible and this was in some cases supported by the care plan. Care plans were reviewed periodically, but not all of them were up to date and reflecting people’s current needs.

People told us their consent was gained at each visit. People were supported to make their own decisions and choices. No one was subject to an order of the Court of Protection. Some people chose to be supported by family members when making decisions. Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant. The registered manager understood the principles of the MCA. However care plans and assessments lacked detail about people’s capacity to make their decisions and the legal arrangements people had in place to help them manage their affairs.

People felt safe using the service and when staff were in their homes. The service had safeguarding procedures in place and staff had received training in these. Staff demonstrated an understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns in order to keep people safe.

People had their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff. People received a service from a very small team of regular staff and felt the continuity of care was excellect. Staffing numbers were kept under constant review. New staff underwent a thorough induction programme, which included relevant training courses and shadowing experienced staff for a wide variety of tasks, until they were competent to work on their own. Staff received training appropriate to their role and some staff had gained qualifications in health and social care.

People were supported to maintain good health. People told us how observant staff were in spotting any concerns with their health. The service worked jointly with health care professionals, such as community nurses.

People felt staff were very caring. People said they were relaxed in staffs company and staff listened and acted on what they said. People had always been treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was respected. Staff were kind and caring in their approach and knew people and their support needs very well.

People told us they received person centred care that was individual to them. They felt staff understood their specific needs relating to their age and physical disabilities. Staff had built up relationships with people and were familiar with their personal histories and preferences.

People told us that communication with the registered manager was good. People saw the registered manager regularly, because as well as undertaking assessments, care planning and reviews they worked ‘hands on’ delivering care every day. People felt confident in complaining, but did not have any concerns. People had opportunities to provide feedback about the service provided. No negative feedback had been received. People felt the service was well-led and well organised.

The provider had aims and objective to promote the highest standards of care and people felt they received this.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.