Archived: Blessing Agencies Ltd

Updated 15 July 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was carried out on 14 June 2016 and was announced. The inspection was undertaken by a single inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed relevant information that we had about the provider including any notifications of safeguarding or incidents affecting people’s safety and wellbeing.

During the inspection we looked at one care plan. We reviewed three staff files and looked at documents linked to the day to day running of the agency including a range of policies and procedures. We also looked at other documents held at the service such as risk assessments, training records and the staff rota. We also spoke with the registered manager.

After the inspection we spoke with one relative and two staff members.

Updated 15 July 2016

We carried out an inspection of Blessing Agencies on 14 June 2016. This was an announced inspection where we gave the provider four days notice because we needed to ensure someone would be available to speak with us.

Blessing Agencies is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own home. At the time of our inspection there was one person who received personal care from the agency. This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in April 2014.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Risk assessments were not updated to reflect the person’s current needs and did not take into consideration their health needs. When a risk was identified it did not provide clear guidance to staff on the actions they needed to take to mitigate risks in protecting the person such as with falls and skin integrity. The care plan we looked at was not completed in full.

The person was protected from abuse. The relative we spoke to told us they were happy with the support received from the service. Staff were able to describe the different types of abuse and knew who to report abuse to within the organisation. One member of staff did not know how to whistleblow. Whistleblowing is when someone who works for an employer raises a concern about a potential risk of harm to people who use the service ot outside organisation such as the CQC.

Assessments were not being completed in accordance to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had not been trained in MCA. One staff member was unable to tell us the principles of the MCA.

Staff told us they were supported by the management team. However, formal one to one supervisions and appraisals had not been carried out with staff members.

We did not see documentary evidence that audits were being carried out on the person’s care records and staff files which would include checks on care plans, risk assessments and supervision that would have helped identify the issues we found during the inspection.

Checks had not been undertaken to ensure staff were suitable for the role as we did not see evidence that references had been requested prior to staff commencing their employment. The person receiving personal care was supported by suitably qualified and experienced staff.

The relative we spoke to told us that staff communicated well with the person. However, the person’s ability to communicate was not recorded in their care plans.

Spot checks were being carried out and views about the service were being obtained from the relative. However, spot checks and the relative’s views were not being recorded so that the information could be used to make continuous improvements to the service.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the person’s needs.

There was a formal complaints procedure with response times. The relative we spoke to was aware of how to make complaints and staff knew how to respond to complaints in accordance with the service’s complaint policy.

The person was supported to maintain good health.

The person was encouraged to be independent and their privacy and dignity was maintained.

We identified seven breaches of regulations relating to risk assessment, pre-employment checks, supervision, consent, person centred care, quality assurance and record keeping. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.