Archived: Apollo Care (East) Liverpool

Updated 11 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 28 February 2018 and was announced.

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and the manager is often out of the office supporting staff or providing care. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

Inspection site visit activity started on 28 February 2018 and ended on 2 March 2018. It included phone calls to people who used the service and staff. We visited the office location on 28 February 2018 to see the manager and office staff; and to review care records and policies and procedures.

The inspection was conducted by an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience who has expertise in care at home services.

During this inspection we spoke to three staff members and four people using the service and their relatives by telephone. We contacted two health and social care professionals after our inspection to ask for feedback. We also spoke with the office manager and the registered manager. We viewed the care records for three people, and checked five staff recruitment files. We looked at other documentation the service had in place.

Updated 11 April 2018

This inspection of Apollo Care (East) took place on 28 February for the site visit, and phone calls were made to people and staff on 1 & 2 March 2018.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. Apollo Care is part of a larger franchise group of the same name but registered under different legal entities. In this case, M Jackson was the legal entity (registered provider) of Apollo Care (East).

At the time of our inspection the service was providing care and support to nine people. There were seven staff employed at the service.

Not everyone using Apollo Care East receives 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.

A registered manager was 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.

Everyone we spoke with told us that the service was safe.

We looked at the rota system the service had in place. We saw that there were enough staff employed by the service to cover all of the contracted hours.

Staff were able to describe what course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed or mistreated in any way. There was a safeguarding policy in place which all staff had signed, and training records showed staff had been trained in this area. Staff also explained the whistleblowing procedure and how they would enforce this if they needed to.

The registered manager was able to evidence that they were routinely learning from their own -practice and used this as an opportunity to improve.

There was a process in place to check and analyse incidents and accidents.

Risk assessments were clear and concise and contained information regarding how to manage risks appropriately.

We viewed medication administration records (MAR) sheets for some people who were having their medicines administered by staff, and saw they were accurate and complete. Staff were trained in medication administration, and were subject to regular spot checks conducted by the office manager as part of supervision processes. This was to help ensure staff were competent with regards to administering medicines.

Staff were recruited safely and checks were carried out on staff before they started work at the organisation to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff were supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE). This included gloves, aprons and hand sanitizer. Staff we spoke with told us they were always able to ask for more PPE when needed. Staff had completed infection control and prevention training, and understood the importance of reporting outbreaks of flu and vomiting to the registered manager, so they could cover their work to prevent the spread of infection.

The registered manager and the staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated legislation.

People were supported as part of their assessed care needs with eating and drinking, and staff documented what people ate and drank to ensure they were getting access to adequate nutrition and hydration.

Staff supported people to access other healthcare professionals such as GP’s and District Nurses if they felt unwell.

Staff completed an induction as well as other training courses selected by the registered provider to enable them to have the skills needed to complete their role. These ranged from basic training courses required by the provider and end of life care. We saw that more complex individualised care, such as for people who had brain injuries, was sourced separately.

All staff had been supervised regularly.

People told us they liked the staff who supported them, and spoke positively about them.

Staff we spoke with described how they provided diverse and dignified support to people.

Care plans contained a high level of person centred information. By ’person centred’ we mean the service was tailored to meet the needs of the person, and not the service. Care plans, with regard to people’s preferred routines and personal preferences were well documented and plainly written to enable staff to gain a good understanding of the person they were supporting.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us they knew how to complain.

Quality assurance procedures were robust, and regular audits in medication and care planning were completed. Regular team meetings took place, and routine feedback was gathered from people who used the service either over the telephone or face to face.