You are here

Phoenix Medical Advice And Repatriation Limited Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 January 2019

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal and nursing care to older adults, younger disabled adults and children, living in their own homes in the community. At the time of our inspection 19 people including 14 children and five adults received a service. Some children and adults had complex health care needs. Some staff worked with both children and adults.

This announced inspection took place on the 8 and 9 October 2018. During our previous inspection in September 2017 we found several breaches of the regulations, this was because records were not always up to date and accurate. Risks had not always been identified or minimised. There were not always sufficient numbers of trained staff available to meet people’s needs. The staff did not always practice in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We also found the provider could not be assured staff had the competence or skills to carry out specific tasks. This was because the staff were not always tested or observed. People complained to us about the poor communication they experienced with the office staff. This had caused some distress. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; safe; effective; responsive and well-led to at least good. During this inspection we found improvements had been made in all areas.

At the time of this inspection there was no registered manager in place, however a candidate had applied to the commission to be registered and was completing the registered manager’s application process. 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’s relatives told us they believed the service was safe. Risk assessments had been completed for care and the environment. Where risks were identified these had been minimised. The risks to people and staff were regularly reviewed. Trends were identified and action taken to prevent a reoccurrence where possible. Care plans gave guidance to staff on how to reduce risk and included people’s needs and preferences. People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving care.

Staff received an induction which included training. They received support through supervision and appraisals. Specialist training was provided to ensure they could meet people’s individual needs. Competency assessments took place to ensure staff where meeting the required level of skills and knowledge.

Staff received training in how to identify signs of abuse. Records showed appropriate action had been taken when concerns were raised. This helped protect people from harm. Safe recruitment systems were in place to minimise any risk that unsuitable staff were employed to work with people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People’s relatives told us the staff were supportive and described them as “Brilliant”, “Gentle” and “Very good”. People’s healthcare needs were met through the involvement of external professionals and the co-operation of Phoenix staff.

People or their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Regular contact was made with people to ensure they were happy with the delivery of care and to discuss any changes that may have been required.

Where people had communication difficulties, staff were trained to ensure their ability to communicate was enhanced. People were assisted to remain as independent as possible and staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and dignity. People received support to participat

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risks of abuse as staff were suitably trained and policies were in place to safeguard people.

Risks were identified and minimised. Risks were regularly reviewed to keep people safe. This reduced the risk of people receiving inappropriate and unsafe care.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was effective.

People’s health was monitored and when necessary external professionals were contacted to provide support to people on maintaining good health.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how this applied to their role.

Staff received appropriate training and ongoing support through regular meetings on a one to one basis with senior staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated a caring nature and who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and the care required.

People’s dignity and privacy was respected and promoted.

People could communicate with staff in a way that was meaningful to them. Systems were in place to encourage effective communication with people.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was responsive.

Systems were in place to provide people with individual needs the support they needed in an inclusive way.

People knew how to raise concerns. When people had raised concerns, these were dealt with quickly and appropriately.

People participated in activities at home and in the wider community. This encouraged inclusion and protected people from social isolation.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was well led.

The managers, senior staff and the director of the service provided effective leadership and management.

The manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and took appropriate action to improve the standards when necessary.

Staff told us the management were supportive and they worked well as a team. There was an open and honest culture which enabled a positive working environment.