You are here

Archived: Nationwide Care Services Limited (Dudley) Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 10 June 2016

This inspection took place on the 18 and 19 April 2016 and was unannounced. This was because we had received some anonymous concerns about the way the service was being managed so we did not announce our inspection visit with the provider. This was the first inspection since this service was registered July 2015. Nationwide Care Services Limited (Dudley) provides personal care and support to 84 people that live in their own homes.

There was a registered manager in post, but they were not based full time at this location. The registered manager did visit the office during our visit and we did have a brief discussion with him. The service was managed on a daily basis by a branch manager who advised that they were supported by the registered manager. The branch manager was present during 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Recruitment procedures were not robust to ensure all the required information was obtained before people commenced employment.

People did not always receive a reliable and consistent service, as some people had experienced late and missed calls.

The registered manager had failed to meet the requirements of their registration with the Care Quality Commission as we found a number of incidents that had occurred within the service that had not been reported as required.

Quality assurance systems were not effective and had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Staff had received training and knew how to report and deal with issues regarding people’s safety.

People told us they received their medicines as prescribed, but the medicine records were not always completed to demonstrate this.

Risk assessments and care plans had been developed with the involvement of people. People had equipment in place when this was needed, so that staff could assist them safely.

Staff understood that people have the right to refuse care and that they should not be unlawfully restricted.

People received care from staff that were respectful and caring and ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was maintained. People had someone they could talk to if they were not happy about the service they received.

Feedback was sought from relatives about the service provided to their family member.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was not safe.

Recruitment procedures were not robust and did not ensure all of the required checks were completed before staff started work.

People did not always receive a consistent and reliable service.

People felt safe and staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and protect them from harm.

People told us they received their medication as required, but the records did not demonstrate this.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was effective.

People�s needs were met by staff that had received training to ensure they had the skills for their role.

Staff ensured they obtained people�s consent before providing support.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were kind and caring.

Staff ensured that people�s privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was responsive.

The support people received met their needs and preferences.

People felt confident that any concerns they raised would be listened to and action would be taken.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 10 June 2016

The service was not well-led.

The quality assurance systems were not effective and did not identify the shortfalls in the service.

Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to provide feedback about the service they received.