You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 December 2018

The inspection took place on 10 December 2018 and was announced.

At our last inspection of the home in January 2018 the service was rated ‘requires improvement overall’. At that inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in respect of Regulation 12, safe care and treatment and Regulation 17, good governance. This was because risks to the health and safety of service users had not been consistently assessed and the provider did not have effective systems in place to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality of service that people received.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions to at least good. At this inspection we identified that improvements had been made with regard to Regulation 12 and 17 and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. This was because risks to the health and safety of service users had been assessed and plans put into place to reduce known risks, and quality assurance processes were in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.

Sabaoth Care is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults living in the North Liverpool area. At the time of our inspection 10 people were using the service.

There was a registered manager 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.

Not everyone using Sabaoth Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service provided to people in receipt of ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. There was enough staff employed by the service to help people with their day to day support needs at the times they wanted.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people who received a service were safeguarded from abuse. This included training for staff. Staff we spoke with confirmed they knew how to raise concerns.

There was a process for recording, reporting and analysing incidents and accidents.

Risk assessments and support plans had been completed for everyone who received care to help ensure people's needs were met and to protect people from the risk of harm.

There was personal protective equipment (PPE) available for use, such as gloves and aprons.

The service supported people with medication. Medication was administered by staff who had the correct training to enable them to do this. Records were kept in line with current guidance.

Staff received training to enable them to support people safely and training records confirmed this. Staff engaged in regular supervision with their manager.

The service was operating in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and consent was sought in line with people's best interests. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice.

People were treated as individuals, and their choices and preferences were respected by staff.

People's care plans were person centred and contained details about the person, their likes, dislikes, how they wanted to be supported and what they could do for themselves.

People's dietary needs were managed with reference to individual preferences and choice.

There was a complaints process in place. There

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 December 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people's safety were assessed and control measures were in place to help ensure their safety.

Systems were in place to support people to take their medicines safely.

Staff had been checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

There were enough staff employed to ensure people's care needs were consistently met.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff were supported through induction, regular on-going training, supervision and appraisal.

People were supported to enjoy a varied diet which met their dietary needs and preferences.

People were asked for their consent to the care and support they received.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 December 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted.

People received their care and support from a regular staff team.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 December 2018

The service was responsive.

People's care and support needs were planned for and reviewed on a regular basis.

People received the care and support they required and were happy with the service.

People knew who to speak to if they were unhappy about the service they received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 December 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in post and feedback regarding the leadership and management of the service was positive.

The registered manager undertook audits to identify areas for improvement and development.

Staff sought feedback from people and relatives to gain their views about the service.