You are here

Archived: ACASA Good

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

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 April 2016

The announced inspection took place on 16, 18 and 19 February 2016. ACASA (Alexander’s Care and Support Agency) provides a domiciliary care service to enable people living in the Basingstoke and the surrounding area to maintain their independence at home. At the time of our inspection there were 146 people using the service, who had a range of health care needs. Some people were being supported to live with dementia, whilst others were supported with specific health conditions including epilepsy, diabetes, sensory impairments and mental health diagnoses. The agency also provided a reablement service called React, in partnership with Hampshire County Council. This service provided an intensive period of support for people in their own homes to re-learn skills and build the confidence they need to reach their maximum level of independence. At the time of the inspection the provider deployed 56 staff to care for people and meet their individual needs.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager also had responsibility for two other services within the care group. Therefore, the provider had appointed a local team manager who had responsibility for running the service on a day to day basis. A manager had also been appointed to supervise the delivery of the React service.

People were supported by staff they could trust, who made them feel safe. Relatives had no concerns for the safety of their loved one and told us they experienced good continuity and consistency of care from conscientious, dedicated staff.

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report potential signs of abuse. Records showed safeguarding incidents had been reported, recorded and investigated in accordance with the provider’s safeguarding policies and local authority guidance. People were kept safe as staff understood their role in relation to safeguarding procedures. The registered manager and team manager ensured staff safety at work by effectively implementing the provider’s lone worker policy.

The registered manager ensured people were protected people from harm by identifying risks associated with their care and managing these effectively. Designated staff completed needs and risk assessments, which promoted people’s independence, while keeping them safe. Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance to follow in order to provide the required support to keep people safe. We observed staff support people safely in accordance with their risk assessments and support plans.

The registered manager completed a weekly staffing analysis to ensure there were sufficient suitably qualified staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs. Rosters demonstrated that the required number of staff to meet people’s needs was always provided, which we observed in practice. The provider had a stringent annual leave policy, which ensured there were sufficient staff to cover popular public holidays. Office staff had all completed the provider’s required training which provided resilience to cover any unforeseen staff absence.

Recruitment files showed that a thorough system was in place for pre-employment checks and the required records were available to confirm these had taken place. The provider had obtained proof of candidates’ satisfactory conduct in previous health and social care employment. People were safe as the provider had assessed the suitability of staff to provide care to people in their own home.

Staff told us they felt confident managing medicines and that their training had prepared them to do this. People received their medicines safely, administered by staff who h

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 April 2016

The service was safe

People received good continuity of care from trusted staff who knew them well, which made them feel safe. Staff understood how to keep people safe and how to raise concerns if they had them.

Risks to people were identified and effectively managed by staff to ensure people�s safety.

Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed to ensure people�s needs were met safely. Safe recruitment practices were followed and completed before staff were employed to work with people.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines by staff who administered their prescribed medicines safely. Training records confirmed staff had received required medicines management training. Staff told us they felt confident managing medicines and that their training had prepared them to do this safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision to enable them to effectively meet people�s assessed health and care needs.

People were supported to make informed decisions and choices by staff who understood legislation and guidance relating to consent and mental capacity.

People were encouraged to maintain a nutritious, healthy diet and identified dietary needs were managed effectively.

Staff were alert and responsive to changes in people�s needs. Staff ensured people accessed health care services promptly when required and were supported to maintain their health and well-being.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 April 2016

The service was caring

People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day to day care by staff who responded to their needs quickly. Staff were thoughtful and showed concern for people�s wellbeing in a caring and meaningful way.

People were actively involved in making their decisions and planning their own care and support. People told us they were able to make choices about their day to day lives and staff respected those choices.

Staff promoted people�s dignity by treating them as individuals and respecting their diversity. Staff took time to listen to people and make sure they understood their wishes.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 April 2016

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was tailored to meet their individual needs. Staff responded effectively to meet people�s changing health needs. Staff promoted people�s confidence and independence to empower them to live their lives as they wanted.

There were processes in place to seek feedback from people, relatives and supporting health and social care professionals about the quality of the service.

Complaints were managed in accordance with the provider�s policy. People were provided with information about how to complain, which was accessible and in a format of their choice. Learning from complaints had been used by the registered manager to drive improvements in the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 April 2016

The service was well-led.

Care staff understood the provider�s values and practised them in the delivery of people�s care.

The registered manager and senior staff provided clear and direct leadership to staff, who understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff spoke positively about the leadership and support provided by the management team.

The management team effectively operated quality assurance systems to monitor the quality of service being delivered and to drive improvements.