You are here

Care Assistance Requires improvement

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

We are carrying out a review of quality at Care Assistance. 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 16 November 2018

The inspection took place over the period of 16 October to 22 October 2018, with the provider being given short notice of the visit to the office on 16 October in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies. The service was last inspected in February 2018, and was given an overall rating of “inadequate.” Six breaches of regulations were identified at that inspection, relating to; how the service was managed and the governance arrangements; how medicines were managed; how consent was obtained and acted upon; how complaints were managed; and how people were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. In response to this we took enforcement action against the provider.

We also placed the service into special measures. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats and specialist housing. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults in the Rotherham and Sheffield areas. At the time of the inspection they were providing support to approximately 80 people.

The provider was registered as an individual, meaning that there was no requirement for a registered manager.

People’s care files showed that their care needs had been thoroughly assessed, and they received care in accordance with their assessed needs.

People told us that they experienced a good standard of care and that they found staff to be warm, friendly and caring. Staff told us that providing a caring service was the most important aspect of their role.

Staff were provided with a comprehensive training programme which they told us they found useful. This helped them meet the needs of the people they supported.

Records demonstrated people’s capacity to make decisions had been considered as part of their care assessment, and where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care and welfare the provider ensured decisions were made lawfully.

People’s care was reviewed to ensure it met their needs, and care was tailored towards each person’s individual preferences and care needs.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. People told us they felt confident to make a complaint and were assured it would be dealt with appropriately.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Risk assessments were up to date and detailed.

We found recruitment processes were thorough, which helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

The way that medicines were managed by the service required improvement, as adequate records of the administration of some medicines were not kept.

The registered provider had a clear oversight of the service, and of the people who had used or were using it, and the standard and quality of care visits was regularly monitored. Other audits had been introduced, although they were not particularly comprehensive.

A supervision and appraisal programme had been introduced, but had still to be embedded into day to day practice within the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 November 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

There were systems in place to reduce the risk of abuse and to assess and monitor potential risks to individual people. Risk assessments were up to date and detailed.

We found recruitment processes were thorough, which helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

The way that medicines were managed by the service required improvement, as adequate records of the administration of some medicines were not kept.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were provided with a comprehensive training programme which they told us they found useful.This helped them meet the needs of the people they supported.

Records demonstrated people’s capacity to make decisions had been considered as part of their care assessment, and where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care and welfare the provider ensured decisions were made lawfully.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 November 2018

The service was caring.

People’s care files showed that their care needs had been thoroughly assessed, and they received care in accordance with their assessed needs.

People told us that they experienced a good standard of care and that they found staff to be warm, friendly and caring. Staff told us that providing a caring service was the most important aspect of their role.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 November 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care was reviewed to ensure it met their needs, and care was tailored towards each person’s individual preferences and care needs.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. People told us they felt confident to make a complaint and were assured it would be dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 November 2018

The service was not always well led

The registered provider had a clear oversight of the service, and of the people who had used or were using it, and the standard and quality of care visits was regularly monitored. Other audits had been introduced, although they were not particularly comprehensive.

A supervision and appraisal programme had been introduced, but had still to be embedded into day to day practice within the service.