The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Apex Health + Social Care - Staffordshire

Suite 2, The Quadrant, Town Road, Hanley, Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire, ST1 2QD (01782) 269669

Provided and run by:
PHIRST Group Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

28 March 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to check that improvements had been made to the service delivery since our last inspection and because we had been made aware of concerns about how the service was managed from our partner agencies. We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions; Is the service safe, effective, caring, well led and responsive?

' Is the service safe?

We looked at the records of seven people who used the service. We saw risk assessments of people's health and care needs were completed as well as environmental risk assessments. This meant action had been taken to ensure people received the care and support they needed to maintain their welfare. Staff had information they needed to ensure their own safety while attending to people's care. Staff told us they had received the training they needed to support people appropriately.

Is the service effective?

A relative told us: "I have had problems with the agency in the past but they have improved and communication is better recently".

We saw that people's care needs had been assessed and the plans of care provided an account of how those needs could be met. Staff recorded the support the provided on a daily basis in individual care logs. Records we looked at showed that people's care was usually being provided as stated in their care plans. Where deficits had been identified in the records or with the delivery of care, we saw the provider had acted to remedy and resolve them.

' Is the service caring?

Relatives we spoke with told us: "When the regular carers visit we have no problems and my relative really likes some of them. There can be problems when the regular staff are on holiday, but this is only an occasional problem". Another relative said: "They try their best".

' Is the service responsive?

People we spoke with told us how they had raised concerns in the past and they had been addressed. One relative told us: "We have a communication book in place now as well as the care records, so I can jot things down I think the carers need to know. I think it's working quite well". A staff member told us: "I refer any concerns to the senior or to the office and I feel that I'm listened to. The new manager is really trying hard".

' Is the service well led?

Since the last inspection a new manager has been appointed to the service and has been registered by us (CQC). During this inspection they were able to demonstrate that they knew the improvements needed to ensure the service provided good quality outcomes for people who used the service and staff. They told us: "I am monitoring all aspects of the service regularly and have been able to make some changes already".

During this inspection we spoke with the relatives of four people who used the service. We looked at the records of seven people, spoke with four care staff and the registered manager. People we spoke with told us: "I think things have improved, my dad seems happy with how things are organised" and another relative said: "I have had some concerns about the time staff arrive. They have been late, a lot later than they should be. We've raised concerns in the past".

Staff we spoke with said: "The new manager is making improvements you can see that. I think things are better organised" and, "Morale is better, but there are still improvements to be made"

5 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our previous inspection, we identified that the provider was not meeting the expected standards in these outcome areas. We set compliance actions, requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and when changes would be made.

At this inspection, we found that improvements against the action plan were starting to be made. The arrangements for monitoring the delivery of care and managing people's medicines had improved, to ensure that people would always receive the right care and support. The information in daily records now provided a good overview of the day to day care and support provided. The provider had also taken reasonable steps to protect people against the risk of abuse.

During our inspection, we talked with two people receiving care from the agency and four relatives. We were told that care staff took their time and did not rush people. One relative told us, 'The care workers are compassionate and caring, and never rush their way through the call.' Another relative told us, 'They are genuine staff, who can be trusted.' The availability of staff still meant that some calls were not being completed on time or in the way people's care plans required.

30 August 2012

During a routine inspection

This was the first inspection of the agency since registration in December 2011. The agency did not know we were coming to complete our inspection. During our inspection, we talked with four people receiving care from the agency, two relatives and four members of staff.

People receiving a service from the agency were very positive about the support provided. One person told us that, 'I could not have a better bunch of girls.' People were supported to be involved in all aspects of the care and support provided by the agency. The people we spoke with who used the agency told us they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Where this was not possible, their relatives were supported to be involved in the planning and delivery of care.

We found that care plans and risk assessments were kept under review, but not always updated in response to changes in needs or circumstances. We found that daily records were usually completed but the detail was often very brief. This made it difficult to understand what support had been provided during calls. It also meant it was difficult to check that care provided met people's needs.

The planning and delivery of training met the identified training needs of staff.

The care staff we spoke with had a good understanding of safeguarding and the types of abuse people receiving care in their own homes could be at risk from. The manager did not have a clear understanding of their responsibilities to report potential abuse under local safeguarding procedures.

The planning of staff rotas did not ensure that people would always receive the right care, at the right time. At the time of our inspection, the agency had a number of care staff vacancies. We found that there were ongoing issues with late calls. People told us that they were generally advised when care staff were running late. One person told us, 'The agency called to let me know the carer was going to be late so I did not worry. '

We found that there were some systems starting to be put in place to monitor the quality and safety of care, action in response to risks identified was not always taken in a timely manner. The recent changes in management were considered to positive by both people and care staff. One person told us that, 'I would not hesitate to tell them I was not happy and I know they would do something about it.' The checks and controls in place did not ensure that people always received the right medication, at the right time. The planning of support and monitoring required for people with their medication was unclear. The quality of record keeping in this area and more generally in care plans was poor. This made it difficult to check that people's medication was being administered correctly and that care was being delivered appropriately.