We undertook an announced inspection of Sceptre House on 12 and 13 February 2018. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming because the location provides a domiciliary care service for people in their own homes and staff might be out visiting people. Sceptre House 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 both older and younger adults. At the time of the inspection it provided personal care to around 26 people in their own homes in Surrey. The majority of people’s care was funded by Surrey County Council.
We previously inspected Sceptre House on 24 and 25 July 2017 and rated it Requires Improvement. We identified breaches of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment (Regulation 12), safeguarding people from this risk of abuse (Regulation 13), good governance (Regulation 17), staffing (Regulation 18) and fit and proper person employed (Regulation 19). We issued warning notices in relation to Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 and asked the provider to meet the regulations by 22 November 2017.
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 of ‘Is the service Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led?’ to at least good.
At the time of the inspection a registered manager was in post. The registered manager was not available to attend the inspection but knew it was going ahead in their absence. 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.
Information in relation to prescribed medicines that should be administered was not accurate and did not provide appropriate guidance for care workers which meant there were risks that people might not receive their medicines as prescribed.
Risk management plans for risks identified during people’s needs assessment were not in place to provide care workers guidance on how to reduce these risks and ensure people’s safety.
The provider had a procedure for the recruitment of care workers but this was still not being followed, as the provider did not ensure that appropriate references were in place before assessing applicants’ suitability for the role.
Staff were not deployed appropriately as the provider did not always ensure that care workers arrived at the time agreed with the person and stayed the full length of the visits.
New care workers completed induction training but the records of shadowing sessions did not demonstrate the competency of the new care worker had been assessed to ensure they had appropriate knowledge for their role.
The provider had a policy and procedure in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 but was not always working within the principles of the Act to ensure people could consent to their care or that decisions were made in their best interests.
Care plans identified the person’s wishes as to how their care should be provided but the records were not updated when a change to the person’s support needs occurred to provide up to date information for care workers.
The provider had audits in place but these did not identify areas where improvement was required. There was no robust system in place to ensure care workers visited people at the planned time and stayed for the agreed length of time.
Most of the people we spoke with told us they felt safe when they received care. The provider had systems for the recording and investigation of incidents and accidents, complaints and safeguarding concerns to identify any trends or required actions.
An assessment of the person’s support needs was completed to ensure the service could meet these needs and provide appropriate care.
Care plans indicated if the person required support from the care worker to prepare meals and identified their preferences for food and drink. These were followed by care workers.
People felt the care workers treated them with dignity and respect when they provided support. The care plans identified the person’s religious and cultural needs as well as information about the person’s background and family to help them meet the person’s support needs.
The provider had a complaints process in place and people knew what to do if they wished to raise any concerns.
Although we found a number of areas that needed to be improved, care workers felt the service was well-led and they were supported by their manager.
At this inspection we found some improvements had been made in some areas. However the provider had also failed to meet breaches in Regulation in relation to person centred care (Regulation 9), need for consent (Regulation 11), safe care and treatment (Regulation 12), good governance (Regulation 17), staffing (Regulation 18) and fit and proper person employed (Regulation 19). You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’.
Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.
The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.
If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.
For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.