Archived: Bonney Care Agency

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. At the time of the inspection 15 people received support within a supported living setting and 17 people living in their own home. People’s packages of care varied dependent upon their needs. Some people received continuous support over a 24-hour period, whilst others received support for a differing number of hours each day.

Bonney Care Agency had a registered manager. 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.

Bonney Care Agency previous comprehensive inspection was carried out by the Care Quality Commission and published on 4 August 2017. The overall rating for the service was requires improvement. This inspection has found the service has improved its rating from requires improvement to good.

People’s safety was promoted by staff who implemented the guidance as detailed within people’s risk assessments and care plans. People were supported by staff that had been recruited and had checks undertaken to ensure they were suitable for their role. People’s medicine was managed safely and people received their medicine on time.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure the service and staff could provide the support and care required. We found, people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrict way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People receiving a service within their home were encouraged to maintain their independence, whilst people living within a supported living complex were encouraged to develop skills to increase their independence and confidence.

Staff received support from the management team, through supervision and checks to ensure they were competent to carry out their roles effective. Staff received the training they needed to provide safe and effective care to people. The registered manager was committed to the training and development of staff.

People using the service and family members spoke of the positive relationships they had developed with staff. People’s comments and that of their family members evidence how these relationships had supported people, in gaining confidence to make decisions for themselves and enabling them to remain within their own home. People’s dignity and privacy was promoted and people were aware of their right to confidentiality.

People’s views, and in some instances, those of their family members had been sought to develop their care and support plans. Concerns and complaints had been investigated and documents supported this. People’s care plans had considered the individual needs of each person and the role of staff in meeting these. People residing in supported living complexes were supported by staff to access a range of activities within the community and take part in tasks of daily living.

People’s communication needs were considered when developing care plans, which included information as to how people communicated. This information was used by staff to ensure people were able to and were encouraged to express their views.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the care being provided, which included seeking the views of those using the service, family members and staff. A range of audits were undertaken to evidence the quality of the care and the accuracy of records used to record people’s care and support. There was an open and transparent approach to the management of the service, which included regular team meetings where information was shared and ideas for improvement sought and discussed. External stakeholders who had an interest in the safety and quality of the service being provided had found the service to be complaint when measured against their criteria.

The providers website provided information to people using the service, their family members and the wider public on a range of topics, which included information about the services provided. The website displays the rating awarded by CQC inspections.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report asks is the service safe? You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Business Base on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Business Base is registered to provide personal care and support for people living within their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people using the service. This comprised of three people who resided in their own home and 19 people requiring support who had a learning disability or mental health need, and resided within one of three ‘supported living’ environments based in Leicester.

The inspection was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office to meet with us.

Business Base had a registered manager. 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’s safety and welfare was promoted through comprehensive assessments and on-going review of potential risks to people. Where risks had been identified measures had been put into place to reduce the likelihood of risk and were recorded within people’s records and understood and implemented by staff. People’s safety was promoted as there were sufficient staff to support people.

Staff upon their recruitment had their application and references validated and were checked as to their suitability to work with people, which enabled the provider to make an informed decision as to their employment. Staff underwent training, which promoted people’s safety and welfare. People received the support from with their medicine by staff who had received training.

Business Base is registered to provide personal care and support for people living within their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 20 people using the service. This comprised of two older people who resided in their own home and 18 people requiring support who had a learning disability or mental health need, and resided within one of three ‘supported living’ environments based in Leicester. People, who resided within the ‘supported living’ environment, had at the time of the inspection visit been receiving support from Business Base for approximately eight weeks.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered by CQC on 23 June 2016.

Business Base had a registered manager. 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’s safety and welfare had not been consistently or robustly assessed and plans had not always been put into place to minimise potential risk. We found records contained contradictory information as to people’s needs, which included information about the level of support they required, in a range of areas including support with their medicine.

People told us how staff supported them in a range of activities to support their independence in developing daily living skills. However we found people’s care and support had not been always been documented, which included how people were to be supported to attain their goals and aspirations, and how success was to be measured.

We found shortfalls in the implementation of the system to assess the quality of the care people received. A range of records were not up to date or contained inconsistent information, whilst some documents, such as the business continuity plan had not been completed. This had meant that shortfalls identified as part of the inspection visit had not been identified by the registered manager. The registered manager had taken action to improve the management of the service through the recent recruitment of a manager and appointed other people to other key roles. This was with a view to them being able was have sufficient time to focus on the development of the service as part of their commitment to provide good quality care and the expansion of the service.

Staff upon their recruitment had their application and references were checked as to their suitability to work with people. Staff underwent a period of induction and training, which included their being introduced to people whose care and support they would provide. Staff had been employed to meet people’s needs. People we spoke with were positive about the support and care they received from staff. The registered manager was planning to involve people who use the service in the recruitment of staff.

Policies and procedures were in place for the on-going supervision and appraisal of staff; however we found staff did not have a plan of training which focused on their personal development as detailed within the PIR.

Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent prior to providing care and support and we found people had signed their care plans. Staff liaised with health and social care professionals, which was confirmed by people we spoke with who used the service. However we found people did not have an a health action plan in place to reflect their health care needs detailing those involved in their care as detailed within the PIR. Despite this people’s care records did contain contact details for relevant health care professionals, should staff need to contact them if they had concerns as to people’s health.

People spoke positively about the staff, all stated they were kind and caring and they told us they were supported by a consistent group of staff, who had they had developed positive relationships with. People told us how staff supported them and told us about the positive impact they had on their lives, which included improvements to their health and well-being. A social care professional provided very positive feedback about the service and how the registered manager and staff had responded quickly to provide support to people, when they had referred people to the service.

People were confident to raise concerns about the service with the registered manager. We saw people interacting positively with the registered manager when we visited them, laughing and joking. We saw how the registered manager immediately responded to people when they sought their advice. People using the service and their relatives commented on the service they received and staff also provided feedback by completing questionnaires sent out by the registered manager.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.