You are here

Archived: Comfort Call (Salford) Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 November 2017

This inspection took place on 20 and 28 September and 3, 6 and12 October 2017 and was announced.

Comfort Call Salford is a domiciliary care agency, which provides personal care to people in their own homes who require support in order to remain independent. The office is located in Eccles near Manchester. The agency predominantly covers the areas of Swinton and Eccles.

At time of inspection there was a registered manager at the service. The registered manager had been in post since July 2016. 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.

At the last comprehensive inspection on 11 January 2017 we found the service to be in breach of four regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were relating to staffing, monitoring and audit systems, medicines practice and the service had failed to ensure that suitable arrangements were in place for planning and reviewing people’s care and support in a way that met their individual needs and preferences. Following the inspection we held a joint meeting with the local authority and the provider to highlight the areas of concern and determine what immediate action would be taken. In addition to this we monitored the on-going compliance of the service through regular action plans submitted by the provider.

As part of this inspection we checked to see that improvements had been implemented by the service in order to meet legal requirements. We found improvements had been made in each area of concern from the previous inspection; however the service remained in breach of regulation 17 good governance.

We found on-going improvements in the recording of medicine administration. However, we saw medicine support plans were not updated and often contained incomplete or out of date information. Missing signatures were also evident on Medicine Administration Record (MAR) charts.

Improvements had been noted with the services auditing and governance systems, however these were still not robust h and had not identified the issues highlighted in the management of medicines.

Feedback we gained from people throughout the inspection was positive overall. People spoke about feeling happy and having their care needs met in a person centred, respectful manner. When questioned, staff gave relevant examples of how to care for a person in line with their individual needs and wishes, whilst ensuring the person’s dignity and privacy was respected.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff were able to confidently inform us about the types of abuse people could be subject to and how to raise concerns should they suspect or witness any abuse or abusive practice. All staff had received training in safeguarding and we were able to confirm this was in date.

People spoke about feeling safe in their homes and confirmed staff left them secure following a care visit. The provider ensured processes were in place to ensure a safe environment was maintained for people using the service and its staff. Environmental risk assessments were established to identify any risks associated with lone working, water temperature, sharps and the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

Staff rotas and time sheets indicated that staffing levels had improved. The registered manager told us the rate of pay for care staff had recently been increased and further staff were being interviewed for jobs. People also commented that they did not feel rushed in their daily routine and did not experience any missed visits.

Recruitment procedures were thorough and robust. Staff told us their induction process contained enough information to ensure they had the knowledge to carry out t

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was not always safe.

We found on-going improvements in the recording of medicine administration but saw medicine support plans were not updated and often contained incomplete or out of date information.

People told us they felt safe and were cared for by staff that had been safely recruited.

Staffing levels had improved which enabled the service to manage people's individual needs and risk effectively.

Staff were aware of their duty and responsibility to protect people from abuse and followed the correct procedure if they suspected any abusive or neglectful practice.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was effective.

People received care and support that was tailored to meet their needs and were supported by staff that were well trained and supervised.

Staff and management had an understanding of best interest decisions and MCA 2005 legislation.

People were fully supported with their health and wellbeing.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected by staff whom they described as being respectful and who understood their needs.

People’s care and support was provided according to their wishes and preferences and they were encouraged to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People's care plans were centred on their wishes and needs and kept under review.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and preferences and the agency offered a flexible service that responded to any changes in people's requirements including emergencies.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 November 2017

The service was not always well led.

Audit processes had failed to identify the areas we have raised as breaches of the regulation in this report.

The service had a clear set of values which were promoted by the management team and care staff.

People and staff told us the management team were supportive.