You are here

CRG Homecare - Rotherham Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at CRG Homecare - Rotherham. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

CRG is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community. The registered provider is CRG Homecare Limited. Not everyone using GMC receives regulated activity. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’. This means help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The inspection took place on 17 and 23 July 2018. To make sure key staff was available to assist in the inspection the registered provider was given short notice of the visit, in line with our current methodology for inspecting community based services.

At the time of our inspection there were 128 people being supported that were receiving personal care. The location provided the regulated activity in Rotherham and Glossop.

The service was managed by the 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.

At the last inspection in April 2017, the service was rated Requires Improvement. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘CRG Homecare - Rotherham’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection we found the service still Required Improvement.

We found risks had been identified and staff had knowledge of how to manage risks. However, we identified some lacked detail to ensure staff had the up to date information to manage risks safely. Medicines were given as prescribed but documentation could be improved.

People’s needs and choices were assessed and mental capacity assessments were undertaken. However, we found that best interests were not always clearly documented to show decisions where people lacked capacity were made in their best interests.

Complaints received were not always dealt with following the provider’s complaints policy and procedure. Therefore, it was not evident if people were listened to. We saw people and their relatives had been consulted with about the quality of the service, however, as not all complaints had been formally documented or investigated and improvements had not always been made or lessons learnt.

The quality monitoring systems were in place, the registered provider had identified improvements were required in the governance and management structure. They had made recent changes to ensure improvements were implemented and embedded into practice.

Everyone we spoke with, without exception, said they were very happy about the service being provided. They told us no matter what staff member supported then they were all ale to meet their needs. However, they said at times staff were late, had the odd missed call and staff did not always stay the allotted time.

Staff told us they really enjoyed working for the agency and received support, through training, supervisions and appraisal.

The recruitment processes were robust to ensure safe recruitment of staff to work with vulnerable people.

There was a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were addressed and reported. Staff had good knowledge of how to spot the signs of abuse and what action to take. People we spoke with and their relatives told us the service provided ensured their safety.

People told us the staff were very caring, kind and compassionate. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and ensured their choices and decisions were sought.

The service supported people to prepare and make meals. Staff told us meal choice was very much down to the individual. People told us the staff prepared very good meals.

People who required the involvement of health care professionals were assisted to obtain this support, when

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not always safe.

People were receiving their medicines by trained and competent staff but improvements were needed in the medication documentation and audit processes.

Risk were identified but documentation did not always reflect how the risk was managed.

Staff had good knowledge on how to safeguard people from abuse.

There was enough suitable and sufficient staff employed to support people.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was effective.

There was a system in place to ensure staff were trained and training needs were identified.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required.

Staff were suitably supported.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring.

Staff explained how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity and involved people in their care.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People's needs had been assessed and people were involved in planning their care. However, some care records lacked the detail to enable staff to provide personalised care and support.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt able to complain if they needed to. However, complaints were not always dealt with following the registered provider’s policy and procedure.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not always well led.

The registered provider had systems in place to ensure the service operated to an expected standard. However, these were not fully implemented or embedded into practice.