Archived: Bishopsfield Court

Bishopsfield Court is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to 119 people in the community and within an extra care housing scheme at the time of the inspection. The extra care housing scheme was based in Peterborough and had 48 flats with communal rooms and gardens within one building.

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The registered manager notified the CQC of the majority of incidents that they were legally obliged to. However, there were two safeguarding incidents that CQC had not been notified of.

Staffing levels were looked at to make sure they were satisfactory to meet the needs of the people using the service. However, some people in the community asked that they be notified if their staff member was running late to their care call visit. Staff rotas that scheduled their care call visits changed at short notice to cover short term absences such as annual leave and sick leave. Staff told us this increased the risk of them not identifying the change and wanted the office staff to alert them earlier.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

People felt safe due to their care being provided by staff. Risk assessments identified possible risks to people`s health and well-being. Information was available to guide staff on how to minimise these risks as far as possible. Staff worked in conjunction with guidance from external health and social care professionals across different organisations. This helped promote people’s well-being. Medicines were safely managed.

Staff knew the people they supported. To develop their skills and knowledge staff received regular training, spot checks, supervisions, appraisals and further qualifications. People were supported to maintain their independence. Staff supported people who needed assistance with their food and drink intake.

Staff promoted and maintained people’s privacy and dignity. People had developed good relationships with staff who understood their individual preferences and care needs.

People and their relatives told us staff were caring. People`s personal information was kept secure in the agency’s office. People and their relatives were involved in discussions about their care. Concerns raised about the service were investigated and resolved where possible.

Staff felt well-supported by the new registered manager. There were regular visits from the senior management team to oversee the quality of the service provided. Audits were carried out to monitor the service and address any improvements required.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 23 February 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

This announced inspection took place on 20 January 2017. This is the first ratings inspection at this location since Hales Group Limited became the registered provider on 06 June 2016.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Arrangements were in place to make sure that people, where needed, were supported safely with the management of their prescribed medicines by staff. Guidance for staff on how, why and when to administer ‘as required’ medicines was in place as a prompt.

People were supported by staff in a kind, caring and respectful manner. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff when entering their flat and assisting them with their personal care.

People had support and care plans in situ which provided staff with prompts that they needed when providing support and care to people. These plans contained information such as how people wished to be assisted, their likes and dislikes and what was important to them. People and/or their relatives were involved in the setting up, agreement and review of their/ their family member’s plans of care. However, sometimes the reviews of people’s care plans to make sure they were up-to-date and met people’s current needs were not always carried out in a timely manner.

Plans were put in place to minimise and manage people’s identified risks and to assist people to live as independent life as possible and remain in their own homes.

Staff meetings took place and staff were encouraged to raise any concerns or suggestions that they may have had and provide feedback on any improvements to be made. Staff understood their responsibility to report any suspicions of harm or poor care practice.

Pre-employment recruitment checks were undertaken before new staff were employed. This was to make sure that they were suitable to work with the people they were supporting. However, not all of these pre-employment checks undertaken, were carried out in a robust manner.

Documented evidence showed that there was a sufficient number of staff available to support people with the care that they required.

People were assisted to maintain their health and well-being and were supported to access external health care professionals where needed. Where this support was required, people’s health and nutritional needs were met.

Staff were trained to provide effective care which met people’s individual support and care needs.

Staff were supported by the registered manager to develop their skills and knowledge through supervisions, spot checks, and observation checks to review their competency and training.

The registered manager told us that no one using the service lacked the capacity to make day-to-day or important decisions. The majority of staff received training and staff understood the basic principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This meant that there was a reduced risk that any decisions made on people's behalf by some staff would not be in their best interest and as least restrictive as possible.

The registered manager sought feedback about the quality of the service. They had in place quality monitoring checks to identify areas of improvement needed. These checks and corresponding actions were in place to identify and drive forward improvements required.

There was an ‘open’ culture within the service. People and their relatives were able to raise any concerns that they might have with staff and the registered manager. Records showed that these were responded to and resolved, where possible, to the complainants’ satisfaction.

Notifications are information on important events that happen at the service that the provider is required to notify us about by law. The previous registered manager had failed to notify the CQC about safeguarding incidents that they required to inform us of. However, the current registered manager was aware of all of the important events they needed to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) about.