Archived: Independent Care Solution

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. We spoke with three people who used the service and two family members. We spoke with the registered manager, the assistant manager and five care workers. We also spoke to two social workers and a contracts officer from the local authority. We looked at five care records and five staff records.

Is the service safe?

Staff personnel records contained all the information required by the Health and Social Care Act 2008. All care workers had been trained in safeguarding awareness as part of their induction and demonstrated knowledge of the safeguarding policy during our discussions with them. A contracts officer from the local authority told us 'the agency deals with very vulnerable people; the staff are very experienced and consider their safety at all times.' A local authority social worker told us 'the assistant manager does the risk assessments with a high level of competency.'

Is the service effective?

We spoke to those who used the service or their relatives and were told they were happy with the care provided. Staff told us they understood people's care and support needs and said they referred to the support plan at all times. One family member told us 'without the carers, my relative would not be able to stay at home.' Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people whom they supported. A local authority social worker said 'I can trust the carers to do a good job.'

Is the service caring?

We were told by a care worker 'you cannot do this job unless you have compassion.' We were told how respect for the dignity of the person was observed and how permission was sought before any personal care was given. A family member told us how the care workers "have such a high caring attitude.' Before a service started, an assessment of the persons needs was carried out and a care plan was developed to meet those identified needs.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed in order to meet them effectively. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests and diverse needs. Care and support had been provided which met their wishes. We saw in the record of a person who used the service how their next of kin made frequent requests to vary the service. We noted that the provider responded to these requests and confirmed them in writing to the next of kin. A local authority social worker told us the manager was responsive and 'attended meetings sometimes with only three hours' notice.'

Is the service well-led?

Staff had a good understanding of the philosophy of the agency. They told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Quality assurance processes were in place. We saw completed quality assurance forms on the records of those who used the service. Family members and social workers told us they were asked for their verbal feedback. A family member told us how "the manager organises the staff very well, covering a 24 hours a day support package is not easy." Care workers told us the management team were available to them at all times and were 'very supportive.'

We spoke with the manager and inspected the employment records of the care workers. We found that the information we had been given was incorrect and that the provider was meeting the relevant standard.

We inspected the records relating to all the people using the service and found no evidence to substantiate the information we had been given. We concluded that the provider was meeting the relevant standard.

We inspected this provider in May 2013, when we noted and brought to the provider's attention two issues which had a minor impact on people using the service. The first related to the provider not having in place an effective complaints system, as required by Regulation 19 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

The other was that the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission of two safeguarding alerts it had raised with the relevant safeguarding authority. This failure by the provider was in breach of Regulation 18 (1) and 18 (2) (e) of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

Following our report, the provider sent us a plan of the actions proposed to meet the requirements of the regulation. We made this further visit on 23 July 2013 to check on the actions the provider had taken. We found that the actions were appropriate and sufficient to comply with the regulations.

People we spoke with were generally very happy with the support provided. Two people told us the care and support was 'very good.' Another said it was, 'very personalised' and that carer workers often did extra tasks if they were asked. A relative told us they were, 'Perfectly happy with the service.' People told us they could contact the manager easily and that she often visited them to discuss the service. They said she was very proactive in dealing with any issues raised. Care professionals were very positive in their feedback on the provider. One said 'I have had nothing but good experiences with them.'

We found that some of the provider's records could be improved. There was a generally effective system for monitoring the quality of the service and obtaining feedback from service users, but the feedback was not collated and was therefore difficult to assess. There was no formal procedure for people using the service to make complaints. The Care Quality Commission had not been notified of two safeguarding alerts raised by the provider. We have set compliance actions accordingly.

We spoke with the proprietor of the service who provided us with contact details of staff, people using the service, their relatives, and stakeholders such as commissioning bodies.

The members of staff that we spoke with demonstrated a high level of care and respect for the people using the service. This was confirmed in our conversations with people using the service and their relatives.

We inspected records of people using the service which showed that care plans were regularly reviewed and discussed with people.

Staff records showed that staff were all well trained and suitably skilled and qualified. Regular training was being delivered.

We spoke with people using the service, their relatives and other stakeholders. All said that the service delivered was good. One said "this is the best service we have had". Another said "I have nothing but praise for this provider".