You are here

Archived: ECC Care Requires improvement

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

ECC Care is a domiciliary care service providing personal care and support to people in their own homes. The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 July 2016.

The inspection was completed on 3, 5 and 6 July 2017 and was announced. At the time of the inspection there were 13 people receiving support from the service.

The service did not have a registered manager in post. The previous registered manager had cancelled their registration on 5 June 2017. At the time of our inspection a member of staff employed by the provider had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to be formally registered. 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.

Risks associated with people’s individual health conditions were not always appropriately assessed. Effective guidance was not always in place for staff to follow to enable them to support people safely. Improvements were required to ensure recruitment procedures were robust prior to staff starting work at the service to check they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. The management of medicines was not always safe, no medication audits had been completed by the provider and staff competencies to administer medication had not been undertaken.

The provider lacked insight of their responsibilities and of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where required, mental capacity assessments relating to people’s ability to consent to their care and support had not been completed. Furthermore, staff had not completed MCA training. This meant there was a risk that the care and support provided to people using the service was not being provided in a way that protected their rights.

Improvements were required to demonstrate that staff had completed a comprehensive induction when they started work at the service. Not all staff had received appropriate training to meet the individual needs of people using the service. The provider had not undertaken spot checks to check staff competencies to deliver safe and effective care.

Improvements were required to ensure effective and robust quality assurance processes were in place to drive improvements and ensure safe, effective and high quality care was being provided by staff who were adequately trained to do so.

People using the service felt safe with the staff who provided their care and support. There were safeguarding and whistle blowing policies in place to ensure people were protected from harm and abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe and to protect them from harm and abuse and how to appropriately report any concerns.

People and their relatives were positive about the service. They told us the service was reliable and that they received a good standard of care from a consistent staff team who were caring and kind and who treated them with dignity and respect. Staff knew the people they cared for well. Where required, people’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access health care services.

There was a complaints system in place and people told us that they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

Staff felt valued and enjoyed working for the service and shared the provider’s philosophy to providing a high quality service to people.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was not always safe.

People were placed at risk because risk assessments did not always contain information on people’s specific health conditions. There was also insufficient guidance for staff to follow to mitigate risks associated to people’s health conditions.

Improvements were required to ensure the safe management and administration of medicines to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People felt safe using the service.

There were procedures in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was not always effective.

The provider lacked an understanding of the requirements in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Improvements were required to demonstrate staff had completed an induction to the service, met the induction standards and were competent to undertake their role.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Where required people were supported to access healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was caring.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the people they cared for and supported. People and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind.

People told us that they were treated with respect and dignity.

People were encouraged and supported where appropriate to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was not always responsive.

Improvements were required to ensure care plans contained up to date information which reflected people’s current care and support needs.

People, where appropriate, were involved in their care planning and their preferences were respected.

People were able to express their views about how the service was delivered to them.

There were systems in place for concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 9 August 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

Improvements were required to ensure robust quality assurance systems were in place to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

Staff felt valued and supported.

There was an open and transparent culture at the service. The provider was committed to providing a good quality service and demonstrated willingness to make improvements.