Archived: Polkadot Care Limited (Leeds Branch)

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used this information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

Is the service caring?

We found people who used the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Is the service responsive?

We found evidence people were involved in planning their care and support, where possible.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt their rights and dignity were respected.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.

Three support workers spoken with told us they had not received any safeguarding training with the agency.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Their practices showed there was attention to minimise the risk of cross infection and good standard of hygiene.

We reviewed four sets of staff personal files which contained staff recruitment records. These showed the provider did not always carry out all of the relevant checks before staff were employed. For example, some references were not dated; some staff had only one reference on file; There was no evidence of Disclosure and barring service (DBS checks been carried out; no interview notes and there was no evidence to show whether gaps in employment or educational history were followed up. All of these checks are necessary to ensure the suitability of the staff employed and to meet safe recruitment practice.

This meant there was a risk of staff members who have been barred from working with adults at risk working with people who used the service.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to maintaining accurate records, safe recruitment practises and making sure staff are aware of guidance in safeguarding people

Is the service effective?

We spoke with care staff who had a good knowledge of the people they cared for.

Some entries in care plans had no date and so it was not possible to know when the entry was made. The lack of clarity in describing people's needs could lead to people support needs not being met. The new manager agreed there was some work to be done around care planning.

We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to care planning.

Is the service caring?

People and relatives we spoke with after the visit mostly spoke highly of the staff that visited them. Some said staff were kind, caring and helpful and they were happy with the service provided to them.

Is the service responsive?

Some people told us they had experienced staff arriving late or missed call. They said the staff in the office did not always keep them informed if support workers were going to be late or not turning up. People did say over the past month they have notice an improvement in the service.

Is the service well led?

We asked the manager what audits and quality monitoring were carried out at the agency. We were told random 'spot checks' were conducted on staff as they work in people's homes to make sure care and support was being delivered in line with the agreed care plan. This also included timekeeping, attitude, paperwork and appearance. When we looked at the files we saw some 'spot checks' had been carried out.

People's care plans contained a level of information that ensured their needs were being met. We spoke with seven people and they told us they were happy with the care, treatment and support they received. One person told us, 'I am very well looked after and I am quite impressed with the service.'

People who used the service were protected against the risk of abuse. Some staff had received training in abuse awareness and protecting vulnerable adults in 2012. The manager told us that future training was in the process of being arranged for all staff. The people we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff.

We found that people were supported by sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff which met people's needs. People we spoke with told us there were enough staff and they always turned up on time.

People were treated by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had a programme of on going training, supervision and appraisal.

There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care and support. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided.

People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. People's care plans contained a good level of information that ensured their needs were being met. We spoke with three people and they told us they were happy with the care, treatment and support they received. One person told us, 'Everything is fine. They are very very good.'

People who used the service were protected against the risk of abuse. All staff had received training in abuse awareness and protecting vulnerable adults. There were information resources available to all staff in relation to safeguarding. The people we spoke with told us they felt safe with the staff.

People were treated by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had a programme of on going training and supervision.

There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care and support. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided.