You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The inspection took place on the 10 May 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hour’s notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service. We wanted to be sure that someone would be in to speak with us.

Agincare UK Brighton provides domiciliary care and support for people in their own home. The service provides personal care, help, and support to people with a variety of needs in Brighton and the surrounding areas. The service is located in the centre of Brighton and is situated centrally to

the geographic area it serves. At the time of our inspection 193 people were receiving a care service with an age range between 27 to 102. This included older people, people living with dementia and people with a physical disability.

The service did not have 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. The new manager in post was currently registering with us.

People and relatives gave us a varied response on whether they saw regular care staff and were advised in advance of who was coming and at what time. Comments included “I get a variety of girls, I have got my favourites but I do like them all, we used to get a rota but it stopped so now I don't know who is coming”, “I get the same girls and they are usually on time, they have never let me down”,” I get all different carers, I do have a rota but I’ll be honest it's not always correct” and “Rotas are not always regular”. We have identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

Staff had a firm understanding of how to keep people safe and there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage risks. One member of staff told us”I became aware that something was bothering my client, they weren’t the same, a bit worried and a bit anxious. When I investigated further I discovered some rogue builders had been round and had got them to sign up to a big building project, I immediately contacted the office who contacted their family to stop the work going ahead”. There were enough staff employed to care for people safely and the provider had robust recruitment procedures to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people. People were supported to receive their medicines safely in line with current regulations and guidance.

Staff told us they had received training and were confident to meet people’s needs and told us that communication with senior staff was good. One member of staff told us “The induction helped me with my knowledge and I was taught how to operate the hoists, it was good because if I wasn’t sure they were patient and happy to go over it with me”. Staff had a good understanding of the responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Records confirmed that where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions the service was guided by the principles of the MCA to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

Staff felt fully supported by the registered manager to undertake their roles. They were given training updates, supervision and development opportunities. New staff trained alongside experienced staff on support calls. Competency checks were completed to ensure staff were delivering the correct care and support for people. One member of staff told us “We have regular supervision and talk about any issues or situations we may be having problems with”.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. Comments included “ All of them in turn are kind, I am very satisfied it's been life changing for me to have had this care and support”, “They are kind and funny they make me laugh, cheer me up. I look forward to them coming”. People confirmed staff respected their privacy and dignity

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was safe.

There were processes in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures.

Assessments were undertaken of risks to people who used the service and staff. We saw that appropriate action was taken in response to incidents to maintain the safety of people who used the service.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely. There were appropriate staffing levels to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were supported with induction, supervision and training to equip them with the skills and knowledge to provide care effectively.

People were supported at mealtimes to access food and drink of their choice in their homes and assisted where needed to access healthcare services.

Staff understood the necessity of seeking consent from people and acted in accordance with the MCA.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring and kind staff.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of people’s personal information and people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People were encouraged to express their views about how care was delivered and staff responded proactively.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was not consistently responsive.

People and relatives gave us a varied response on whether they saw regular care staff and were advised in advance of who was coming and at what time.

Assessments were undertaken and care plans developed to identify people’s health and support needs.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences and how best to meet those needs.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 June 2017

The service was well-led.

People and staff felt the manager was approachable and listened to their views.

Quality assurance was measured and monitored to help improve standards of service delivery.

Staff felt supported by management and they were supported and listened to. They understood what was expected of them.