You are here

Vera Care Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 6 September 2017

We carried out this inspection on 26 July 2017. The inspection was announced.

Vera Care Limited is a small domiciliary care agency which provides personal care and support for adults in their own homes. The service provides care for people living in the Medway area. At the time of our inspection they were supporting two people who received support with personal care tasks.

The service had 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 were positive about the service they received. They told us they received a safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led service.

People’s medicines were not always well managed and recorded. There were gaps on the medicines records and codes to evidence why medicines had not been given as prescribed were not used consistently. Medicines records did not detail the times of day that people received their medicines, which meant there was a risk that people would receive their next dose too close together.

There were quality assurance systems in place. These were not yet fully embedded. Quality checks undertaken had not identified the issues in relation to medicines.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and recorded with measures put into place to manage any hazards identified. Risk assessments had not always been updated as people’s needs changed. We made a recommendation about this.

Recruitment practices were safe and checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable to work with people who needed care and support. There were suitable numbers of staff on shift to meet people’s needs. Staffing files were missing photographs of staff. We made a recommendation about this.

Accident and incident recording systems were in place. There had been one accident that had not been appropriately recorded. Appropriate action had taken place to deal with the accident. We made a recommendation about this.

Staff and the management team had received training about protecting people from abuse, and they knew what action to take if they suspected abuse.

Procedures and guidance in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place which included steps that staff should take to comply with legal requirements.

Policies and procedures were in place, which meant staff had access to up to date information and guidance.

Staff had received training relevant to their roles. Further training courses had been booked. Staff received regular support and supervision from their line manager.

People’s information was treated confidentially. People’s paper records were stored securely in locked filing cabinets.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised when people were not acting in their usual manner.

People’s needs had been assessed to identify the care and support they required. Care and support was planned with people and reviewed to make sure people continued to have the support they needed. People’s care plans detailed what staff needed to do for a person. The care plans included information about their life history and were person centred. People were supported to be as independent as possible.

People told us that staff were kind, caring and communicated well with them.

People and their relatives had been involved with planning their own care. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People were given information about how to complain and how to make compliments.

People’s views and experiences were sought through review meetings and through surveys.

People told us that the service was well run. Staff were positive about the support they received from the registered manager. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to.

Communication between staff within the service was good. They were made aware of significant events and any changes in people’s behaviour.

We found two 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 6 September 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People’s medicines were not always well managed and recorded.

Risks to people’s safety were well managed to make sure the risk of harm were minimised. Risk assessments had not always been updated in a timely manner.

People were protected from abuse or the risk of abuse. The registered manager and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place; records relating to employment were mostly complete; staff photographs were missing. There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had completed training to help them meet people’s assessed needs. Staff received regular supervision.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to support people to make decisions.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it.

People had appropriate support when required to ensure their nutrition and hydration needs were well met.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was caring.

People told us they found the staff caring, friendly and helpful.

Staff were careful to protect people’s privacy and dignity and people told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People’s information was treated confidentially.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were person centred and contained important information such as their life history and personal history.

A complaints policy and procedure was in place and people knew how to complain.

People had been asked their views and opinions about the service they received.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 6 September 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

The systems to assess quality had not identified the concerns found in the inspection. The provider and registered manager had not always followed the provider’s policies.

Staff were aware of the whistleblowing procedures and were confident that poor practice would be reported appropriately.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in relation to reporting incidents to CQC.