You are here

Archived: Archangel Home Care - Staffordshire Branch

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 December 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we undertook a follow up inspection in September 2012 we identified concerns with the way the service was managing people's medication. Medication records did not confirm that people were having the right medication at the right time. Also there was no system in place to monitor that medication was being provided correctly. This meant that any shortfalls may not be picked up and acted upon. The manager sent us an action plan telling us how they would address these concerns to make sure they were meeting the regulations.

Relatives of people that were being supported to have their medication were satisfied that medication was being given appropriately. Comments included, "No concerns" and " I am satisfied that the care workers are giving the medication".

We saw that the registered manager had put in a number of systems to make sure that medication was given as prescribed. Some of these had not yet been fully implemented but we were told that there were plans in place to ensure that all actions were taken.

Inspection carried out on 14 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection on the 3 April 2012 we found that the provider was not meeting some of the essential standards of quality and safety.

When we visited last time there was no evidence to show that people's preferences were included in their plans of care. We saw that on this inspection that people were included in planning their care and that the agency sought information about their likes and dislikes.

On this inspection we saw that plans of care were now more specific to the person and that the agency visited people to review their needs and the care to be delivered.

On our previous inspection we found records where not confirming that people were having their medication as prescribed. We saw that there had been no improvement and therefore we looked specifically at how the agency managed people's medication. We saw that there continued to be poor record keeping and staff were not always trained appropriately to provide medication. The agency had no systems in place to check people were getting the right medicines at the correct time.

On the last inspection the agency was not telling us about accidents and incidents that had occurred. Since the last inspection the agency has provided us with this information.

Inspection carried out on 3 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this review to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. We visited Archangel Domiciliary Care Agency in order to up date the information we hold and to establish that the needs of people using the service were being met. The visit was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming.

Following the visit we contacted four people who use the service, family members and spoke with eight members of staff. The people we spoke with were generally happy with the quality of support they received. We were told that they had regular care staff and knew what time to expect them. People using the service told us that the staff provided them with the support they required. One person using the service said, �The staff that come into my home are always polite, I am very happy�. A staff member said. �We work together well, we are a good team�. A new staff member said, �People in the organisation are easy to talk to, I have no worries with ringing and checking things I am unsure about, they are very approachable�.

We saw that people who used the service had care assessments completed before the care delivery started. We saw copies of care plans that were available in people�s homes; these were of varying standards with some requiring further information in them. Most staff told us that care plans were useful and gave them the necessary information to deliver appropriate care. One staff member said that they sometimes lacked relevant information. Care plans were not signed to show that people had agreed for care to be provided.

We saw that some people were supported with taking their medication. The records we viewed were of a poor quality and did not show evidence that people were having their medication as prescribed.

All the staff we spoke with, although not all trained, said they knew what to do if they had any concerns that people may be at risk of abuse. They all agreed that they could raise concerns with senior staff within the organisation and that their concerns would be listened to.

We viewed staff files during our visit and found that the organisation had a process for recruitment and training. The manager told us all staff employed by Archangel were subject to appropriate checks prior to commencing their role.