You are here

Archived: Community Angels Limited Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2016

This inspection took place on 7 and 8 March 2016. The inspection was announced.

Community Angels Limited – Truecare Hampshire, provides personal care and live in services to people in their own homes. They provide services to older people, people living with dementia and people with complex health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 113 people receiving personal care from the service. There were 50 care staff and three co-ordinators who planned people’s care. There was a deputy manager, operations manager, one administrator, managing director and 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 did not always receive a visit and did not have confidence in the care staff who supported them. Staffing levels were insufficient to meet people’s needs particularly in the evenings and at the weekend. People felt their care calls were rushed.

Safe recruitment practices were not always followed. Medicines were not always managed safely. Effective systems to manage and monitor accidents and incidents were not in place.

Staff did not always have the skills, abilities and training to provide the support people needed. Staff had a limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff received supervision but did not always feel supported during the supervision. Team meetings did not take place. Staff received an induction programme.

People were not always supported correctly by staff when preparing meals.

Staff were not always kind, caring or compassionate when care was provided. Most people felt their privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

People knew how to make a complaint. Complaints were received and investigated however there was no record of the outcome of the complaint.

Concerns had been raised to the manager and these concerns were still apparent during the inspection process. Records were not in place to demonstrate that these concerns had been identified and dealt with.

Auditing systems were not in place to assess the quality of the service and assess and mitigate the risk to people who used the service.

Staff felt supported and confirmed some improvements had been made but there were some concerns with the communication between the office and care staff.

Safeguarding concerns had been dealt with and the Commission had been notified. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the whistleblowing process.

Some improvements had been made with the service but people were still experiencing problems with receiving their visits on time and the skills and knowledge of staff.

People were involved in their care and felt they made decisions about their care. Staff promoted people’s independence by encouraging and supporting them to complete some personal care tasks they were able to do.

People were supported to maintain good health and access on-going healthcare support and the service worked alongside health care professionals for people who had complex health needs.

Risk assessments were completed for people which identified risks to their environment and highlighted if manual handling equipment was required. Staff reported and acted appropriately when incidents occurred.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed and people were involved in the assessment of their needs. Care plans were individual, personalised and contained detail specific to their individual needs.

We found a four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was not always safe.

People did not always feel safe because they did not always receive a visit and did not always have confidence in the care staff who supported them.

People and staff felt there were not enough staff, particularly in the evenings and at the weekend. There were on-going concerns with lateness of visits and people felt rushed and did not always receive their planned length of care visit.

Safe recruitment practices were not always followed. Medicines were not always managed safely. Staff did not always receive training on safeguarding.

Risk assessments were completed for people which identified risks to their environment and highlighted if manual handling equipment was required. Incidents and accidents were reported and dealt with appropriately.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was not always effective.

Staff did not always have the skills abilities and training to provide the support people needed. Staff had a limited understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink, however one person expressed concerns that their meal was not cooked sufficiently.

Staff received a joint supervision and spot check but did not always feel supported and team meetings did not take place. Staff received an induction programme.

People were supported to maintain good health and access on-going healthcare support and the service worked alongside health care professionals for people who had complex health needs.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was not always caring.

People felt that staff were not always kind, caring or compassionate when care was provided.

People were involved in their care and felt they made decisions about their care. Staff promoted people�s independence by encouraging and supporting them to complete some personal care tasks they were able to do.

Most people felt their privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2016

People�s needs were assessed and reviewed and people were involved in the assessment of their needs.

People�s care plans were individual, personalised and contained detail specific to their individual needs.

People knew how to make a complaint. Complaints were received and investigated however there was no record of whether the complaint had been dealt with to people�s satisfaction, on-going or closed.

Concerns had been raised to the manager and these concerns were still apparent during the inspection process. Records were not in place to demonstrate that these concerns had been identified, collated or analysed.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 22 April 2016

The service was not always well led.

Some improvements had been made with the service but people were still experiencing problems with receiving their visits on time and the skills and knowledge of staff.

Auditing systems were not in place to assess the quality of the service and assess and mitigate the risk to people who used the service.

Staff felt supported and confirmed some improvements had been made but there were some concerns with the communication between the office and care staff.

Safeguarding concerns had been dealt with and the Commission had been notified. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of whistleblowing and knew what to do if the concerns raised were not dealt with by management.