Archived: Catchers Care Limited

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Catcher’s Care support older people and younger adults, people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, dementia and mental health needs. At the time of the inspection 36 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.’

The service was last inspected on 29 and 31 August 2017 and was rated ‘Requires Improvement’. We asked the provider to act to make improvements as we found risks to people and medicines were not being managed safely. At this inspection we checked to see if the provider had taken actions to address these issues. We found that they had.

People were receiving safe support with their medicines. Staff had regular medicine administration training and competency assessments. There were systems and audit processes to help make sure that people received their medicines safely.

Risks to people were managed safely. Assessments of risks for people and their homes had been carried out. These identified any potential hazards to people’s well-being and considered how to respect people’s choices and minimise restrictions on their independence. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to manage risks safely.

At the last inspection we identified people had not always had assessments of their mental capacity to make certain decisions, accident and incident reporting and quality assurance systems were not always operating effectively. We also found statutory notifications had not always been submitted in a timely manner. The provider had acted to make improvements in these areas during the last inspection process. At this inspection we checked to see that these improvements had been embedded and sustained and found that they had.

Staff received MCA training and understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of this legislation. People’s mental capacity to be able to make decisions about different activities was assessed and recorded. Staff monitored people’s individual capacity and reviewed their assessments regularly. Where appropriate, people with authority to act in people’s best interests were identified and involved in consenting to any decisions made on their behalf. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Accident and incident reporting processes were understood and followed by staff. Incidents and accidents were reported appropriately to external agencies and reviewed by the registered manager and provider. Any necessary actions were put in place. Staff discussed outcomes and any learning following accidents and incidents to look at why incidents might be happening and agree ways to try and prevent them happening again.

The provider had reviewed the service quality assurance systems, introducing more varied and frequent audits to comprehensively cover all areas of service delivery. This helped identify any safety and quality risks and act to address them. Since the last inspection, when necessary, all statutory notifications had been submitted by the registered manager in a timely manner, as required.

People told us they felt safe using the service. One person said, “I feel very safe.” A person’s relative told us, “I would say without doubt that [name] is safe in the hands of the carers from Catchers.” Staff had received safeguarding training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse and their responsibilities to report any concerns. There were safe recruitment practices and the service had enough staff to meet the needs of the people using the service.

People’s physical, psychological and social needs had been assessed before they started to use the service. People and any other relevant persons, such as social care professionals were involved in this process. This identified the support people required and the outcomes they wanted.

People received the support they wanted and this helped them have a good quality of life.

Staff received equality and diversity training and did not discriminate when helping people achieve their care and support choices. A social care professional said, “Their staff work in a non-judgemental way and are always willing to go the extra mile for all of their clients.”

Staff worked well with each other and with other organisations to co-ordinate people’s support. For example, staff regularly liaised with a district nurses and other health and social care professionals to share information and arrange the joint delivery of people’s care. This helped people consistently receive effective support when moving between the care of different services.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and on-going training and supervision to make sure they could deliver effective support. Where people needed this, staff supported them to eat and drink enough and to maintain a healthy balanced diet.

For people who required this support, staff helped them to make and attend health appointments and understand information about their care and treatment options. Staff regularly checked on people’s well-being and could help people to make referrals or access medical services quickly if their healthcare needs changed.

Everyone we spoke with said they thought staff were caring and treated them kindly and respectfully. A person said, “They are what they are, they are carers. They are people who like looking after other people.” A relative told us, “It obviously makes me feel at ease knowing my relative is well cared for and likes the staff that attend him.”

Staff knew people well, involved people in decisions about their care and promoted their independence. People’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected. People told us they received personalised care that met their needs. People contributed to the planning of their care and support and had care plans detailing the support they wanted and needed as well as information about their personal life.

Where people had a disability, intellectual impairment or sensory loss related communication need, this was identified and information about their support was available for them in accessible ways.

People’s care was regularly reviewed and information from reviews was quickly shared amongst the staff team. This helped ensure there were no unnecessary delays if any changes needed to be made to people’s support.

Staff were aware of the level of support people might need to maintain or develop relationships and to access any social activities. Where people needed this, staff supported people to make sure they did not become socially isolated and could follow their interests. People were aware of how to raise a complaint and were provided with information about how to do this when they joined the service. A record of all complaints was kept and reviewed by the provider and the registered manager to see how to improve the service.

People told us the service was well-managed, delivered high quality care and helped people achieve good outcomes. One person said, “Yes I do think it is well-managed because they always come and they are always on time.” Another person said, “It is a well-run company…I am very grateful…I don’t think they could do anything better.”

The provider had a clear vision of delivering high-quality person-centred care. Staff understood and were committed to realising this vision. There was a positive and open team culture, the registered manager and provider were visible and supportive of staff. Staff and people’s views about how to develop and improve the service were encouraged and acted on.

Staff and management worked in an open way with external agencies, such as the local authority and community healthcare services, to share information about people’s support. This helped identify and agree how best to work in partnership, so people could receive consistently effective support.

The service had a manager in post who had registered with the Commission in February 2016. 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 and their relatives told us they were happy with the care received by the service. Yet we found some aspects of the service were not always safe and needed improvement. Staff supported most people with their medicines. Staff used Medication Administration Records (MARs) to record when they had given medicines to people. However, we found this did not include all people’s prescribed medicines which were held in blister packs or topical creams. On occasions staff were involved in an error relating to people and their medicines. Records captured the actions taken by the provider to minimise any further risks to people. However, the actions taken by the provider did not include reporting the incident to the West Sussex safeguarding team for their review. This was not working in accordance with safeguarding procedures, local authority medicine policy and best practice guidance from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). This meant medicines were not always managed safely and the provider was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. During and after our inspection the provider shared with us the action they were taking to ensure safe systems were in place to minimise any further risks to people.

Staff, including the registered manager, had received training and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We also observed how staff considered people’s consent to their care whilst supporting them. However, care records had failed to capture whether a person lacked capacity or not to make specific decisions in relation to their own care. It was not always clear why and who had made care related decisions and whether they were in a person’s best interests as mental capacity assessments had not been completed. We discussed this with the provider who told us they action they had taken.

Accidents and incidents were recorded by the staff team. Staff told us how they would routinely discuss accidents, such as people experiencing falls, with the registered manager. Staff were able to tell us advice would be sought from health professionals such as a GP and in emergencies paramedics would be called. They also told us how they would ensure any concerns were reported to the registered manager and other senior management colleagues in the office. However, records we checked in people’s homes did not always provide details on the action taken by the staff member attending to the incident. During the inspection the provider was able to tell us the action they had taken to address this.

Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the service must inform us about by law. The provider did not always notify the Commission when they were required to do so. We discussed this with the registered manager and the provider who told us the action they were taking. Shortly after the inspection they sent to us notifications retrospectively. Whilst checks made by the provider to ensure the quality of care provided to people had not always been effective, other audits, such as checking staff training and supervisions had made positive contributions to how the service was run.

People received care from trained staff who received supervision from their line manager and were invited to attend staff meeting opportunities. The provider was in the process of recruiting at the time of our inspection as they did not have a full complement of staff. The registered manager and provider also attended care calls and safe recruitment systems were in place. We observed personalised care being provided to people and their privacy and dignity respected. Some people received support with their meals and people spoke positively about this. People were supported to have routine access to health professionals by the staff team if there was an assessed need. People and their relatives told us their concerns and complaints were acted upon and they felt listened to. The staff team understood their role and responsibilities and enjoyed working for Catchers Care Limited. This was mostly due to the ‘family run’ environment which made staff feel well supported.