You are here

Potens Dorset Domicilary Care Agency Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

The inspection took place on 18 December and was announced. The inspection continued on 19 December 2017 and was again announced.

Potens Dorset Domiciliary Care Agency provide a range of care and support services to adults, young people and children with learning disabilities, autism, mental health, physical disabilities and associated problems. They support individuals in their homes, on a one to one basis, either for a short period of time, such as getting ready for school, college or for longer sessions completing specific activities such as community support, attending clubs or day to day living.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to younger disabled adults and children. At the time of inspection the service was supporting 24 children and four young adults.

This service also provides care and support to a person living in a ‘supported living’ setting, so that they can live in their own home as independently as possible. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for supported living; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Not everyone using Potens Dorset Domiciliary Care Agency receives a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had not had a registered manager in place for 73 days. The manager was a registered manager for another Potens service and was in the process of adding Potens Dorset Domiciliary Care Agency to their registration. The application had been received by our registration team. 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 had not received copies of the complaints procedure and verbal concerns were not being recorded. There was a system in place to record complaints which captured steps taken and outcomes. Verbal complaints were recorded and reflective learning took place.

Young adults had not recently been involved in the review or planning of their care and support. People’s current interests and aspirations were not reflected in their plans or reviewed regularly by staff in key worker meetings.

Children’s all about me profiles were not up to date. These were pictorial and recorded what the children liked to be called, where they liked going, their favourite toys, what they liked to do, their special interests, favourite foods and any dislikes they had.

Parents had recently been involved in the review of their children’s short break care plans. These plans reflected current needs and were updated as and when needs changed.

People were supported to access the community and take part in activities that they had social and cultural interests in. We read that people were supported to access clubs, swimming, parks and go on holidays.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Information was shared with staff so that they had a good understanding of what was expected from them.

People, relatives and staff felt that the service was well led. The management team encouraged an open working environment. People and staff alike were valued and worked within an organisation which ensured a positive culture was well established and inclusive. The management had good relationships with people and delivered support hours to them.

The service was aware of their responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, Duty of Candour, that is, their duty to be honest

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s assessed care and support needs.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because staff had completed safeguarding adults training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because risk assessments and emergency plans were in place and up to date.

People were at a reduced risk of harm because medicines were managed safely and only administered by staff that were trained to give medicines

Effective

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was effective. Capacity assessments were completed and best interest decisions were recorded. This meant people were not at risk of decisions being made that were not in their best interest.

People’s choices were respected and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received training, supervision and appraisals to give them the skills and support to carry out their roles.

Staff were supported and given opportunities for additional training and personal development.

People were supported to maintain healthy diets and access health care services.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 August 2017

The service was caring. People were supported by staff that spent time with them.

People were supported by staff that used person centred approaches to deliver the care and support they provide.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for and supported them in decisions about how they liked to live their lifes.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was not always responsive.

Young adults care files and children’s all about me profiles were not up to date.

People did not have a copy of the complaints procedure and verbal concerns were not recorded in line with organisational policy.

People were supported by staff that recognised and responded to and understood their changing needs.

People were supported to access the community and take part in activities which were linked with their own interests and hobbies.

Information was provided to people in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

People did not receive end of life care. Systems would be put in place to make sure that people’s preferences, beliefs and choices were respected when necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 February 2018

The service was mostly well led. The management all promoted and encouraged an open working environment by including people and recognising staff achievement.

The management were flexible and delivered support hours as and when necessary.

Regular quality audits and support visits were carried out to make sure the service was safe and delivered high quality care and support to people. Concerns identified during the inspection had already been identified by management.

The management team were aware of their responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, Duty of Candour and demonstrated an open, honest approach.

People, staff and relatives felt involved in developing the service and spoke highly of the management.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies in ways which benefitted people using the service.